This comparison is based upon the assumption that the text of measures together with arguments upon the measures should be distributed through the mails. A fairer comparison would be one between the cost of distributing the text of measures alone and that of publishing the text alone (as is done in Louisiana); this would reduce the postage charges to one-third of the figures given above. The cost of printing either the text of measures alone or the text with arguments, if borne by the state, must, however, be taken into consideration, as also other expenses incident to the plan of distribution through the mails; but in Louisiana the cost of printing and distributing the pamphlets would probably be much less than that of publication in newspapers under the present system. Oregon and Louisiana may properly be brought into comparison here, as respects the relative cost of reaching the people, for the number of registered voters in each of the two states is approximately the same; and in them the number of measures submitted to the people during the past few years is fairly comparable; Oregon has put the text of proposed amendments (and laws), together with arguments for and against them, into the hands of each voter at a cost less than that of Louisiana for the publication of the text alone in the newspapers of the state.

Missouri now requires the publication of proposed amend

"The cost of publication for 1904 is taken from the auditor's reports; for 1906 and 1908 the figures are taken from the appropriation acts and represent the estimated cost of publication; in 1908 amendments were submitted at two elections so that the cost of distributing through the mails would be double that estimated above.

ments in each county for four weeks; Louisiana, publication for two months; as has already been suggested publication for three months is the more usual requirement. Arkansas, Ohio, and Tennessee require publication for six months, Arkansas and Ohio specifying that publication shall be in a newspaper in each county. In Ohio it has been the custom to provide by law for publication in two newspapers of each county, one representing each political party, and also in the German newspapers of the state; 100 in view of these conditions it is perhaps to have been expected that the publication of five short proposals in 1903 should have cost seventy thousand dollars, and that the publication of two proposed amendments submitted in 1905 should have involved an expenditure of more than thirty-four thousand dollars. 101 The plan of distributing proposed amendments by mail is cheaper and more effective than that of publication in the newspapers of the state, but the new plan will probably not be adopted very quickly because many constitutions specifically require publication in newspapers, and 'constitutional changes in this matter must come slowly.102 is of course possible to require the distribution of proposed amendments to each voter personally, while also complying with a constitutional requirement of publication in the 100 Ohio Laws, 1902, p. 291; 1904, p. 484; 1908, p. 261. 101 Reports of Ohio State Auditor, 1904, p. 30; 1906, p. 31.

It

102 Governor Hughes of New York in his message of January 5, 1910, called attention to the fact that little interest is taken in proposed amendments and urged that means be devised to apprise voters of the nature of amendments submitted. He said: "The delivery of the text of the amendments at the time of registration in districts where personal registration is necessary, and suitable notification elsewhere, would be of no little advantage." Similar statements were made by Governor Higgins of New York in 1906, and by Governor Hughes in 1908 and 1909. Bills embodying Governor Hughes' suggestions were introduced in the New York senate and assembly during the session of 1910.

newspapers. In Wyoming the constitution requires that proposed amendments be published for twelve consecutive weeks in at least one newspaper in each county, and a law of 1909 provides in addition that each proposal shall be printed on a slip or leaflet and be circulated by mail or otherwise among the electors; 103 but this of course adds very much to the cost of publication. Where publication in newspapers is required, a large number of publications is hardly worth while; for attracting public attention publication for one month would seem to be equally as effective as publication for six months. In Florida, however, a proposed amendment reducing the time of publication from three months to one month was defeated in 1906.

Form of Submission

The Illinois constitution provides that "the general assembly shall have no power to propose amendments to more than one article of this constitution at the same session," and in Kentucky "no amendment shall relate to more than one subject." Colorado before 1900 had a provision similar to that of Illinois but by amendment altered its constitutional provision to read so that "the general assembly shall have no power to propose amendments to more than six articles of this constitution at the same session." Colorado also requires "that if more than one amendment be submitted at any general election, each of said amendments shall be voted upon separately and votes thereon cast shall be separately counted the same as though but one amendment was submitted;" and twenty-eight other states also require that where more than one proposed amendment is submitted, each proposal shall be submitted so that it may be voted upon separately.104 These restric103 Wyoming laws, 1909, pp. 27-28.

104 Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,

tions have given rise to some judicial discussion as to what is "one amendment " or " an amendment to more than one article" of the constitution.

With reference to this matter the courts have ordinarily taken a liberal and common-sense view. In the Illinois case of City of Chicago v. Reeves 105 an amendment adopted in 1904 was attacked as altering more than one article of the constitution. The court rejected this contention and said that the restriction "was not intended to prevent implied amendments or changes which were necessarily worked in other articles of the constitution by the express amendment of a particular article of the constitution. Any other view would be so narrow as to prohibit the general assembly in many, if not in all, cases, from proposing amendments to a particular article of the constitution," in as much as the several articles are closely interrelated and interdependent.

As to what may be considered one amendment the courts have in most cases pursued a liberal policy. A Wisconsin constitutional amendment of 1881 provided for the substitution of biennial for annual legislative sessions, and also adjusted the legislative elections and salaries to the new biennal system. To the contention that this measure really Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Vermont requires the general assembly "to enact all such laws as shall be necessary to procure a free and fair vote upon each amendment proposed," but this seems not to require the separate submission of each amendment. The Vermont Constitutional Commission in its report of January 6, 1910, said: "We recommend that all amendments be submitted individually so that the rejection of one may not necessarily involve the rejection of the others."

105 220 Ill., 274 (1906). See also Wilson v. Board of Trustees. 133 Ill., 443.

constituted more than one amendment the court replied: "Such a construction would, we think, be so narrow as to render it practically impossible to amend the constitution. Certainly no good could result from a separate submission which is not equally as well and better accomplished by submitting them together as one amendment; and the separate submission might result in the absurdity of the ratification of the one and the rejection of the other. . . In order to constitute more than one amendment, the propositions submitted must relate to more than one subject, and have at least two distinct and separate purposes not dependent upon or connected with each other." 106 Similarly a recent amendment in Iowa which had for its object the substitution of biennial for annual legislative sessions, was attacked on grounds similar to the Wisconsin amendment, and the court replied: "If the amendment has but one object and purpose, and all else included therein is incident thereto, and reasonably necessary to effect the object and purpose contemplated, it is not inimical to the charge of containing more than one amendment." 107 In Colorado an amendment adopted in 1902 provided (1) for the consolidation of the city of Denver and the county of Arapahoe, and for the framing of a charter by the new municipal corporation, and also (2) for the framing of home-rule charters by all cities of the first and second classes within the state. These two matters were separate and independent, and might well have been submitted as two amendments, but the Colorado court decided: embrace more than one subject. braces more than one subject, separately submitted if they are germane to the general

"That an amendment may That if an amendment emsaid subjects need not be

106 State ex rel. Hudd v. Timme, 54 Wis., 318 (1882).

107 Lobaugh v. Cook, 127 Iowa, 181 (1905).