scinded by the assembly before the time set for the vote to be taken.22 Only one council of censors was elected, that of 1783-84, but although it was agreed that some changes should be made in the constitution of 1776, political controversies made it impossible for two-thirds of the council to agree to any proposed amendments, or upon calling a convention. In March, 1789, the general assembly of Pennsylvania, disregarding entirely the constitutional provisions with reference to the council of censors, ordered that the sense of the people of the state be taken as to the calling of a convention to frame a new constitution. In September, 1789, the assembly, declaring that a majority of the citizens of the state approved a convention in preference to the council of censors, provided for the election of a constitutional convention. The convention chosen by virtue of the assembly's order framed the Pennsylvania constitution of 1790, by which the council of censors was abolished. 23 The council of censors of Vermont had a more successful career, and was regularly chosen, every seven years, in conformity with the constitution, until 1869, and during this time nine conventions were called to pass upon constitutional amendments proposed by the council. The last council, that of 1869, recommended an amendment abolishing the council of censors, and this amendment was ratified by the convention of 1870. Constitutional revision by councils of cen

22 Journals of the House of Representatives of Pa., 1776-1781, pp. 145, 246, 324. Pennsylvania Colonial Records, xi, 220. For the political issues in Pennsylvania during this period see Oberholtzer, Referendum in America, chap. ii, and Paul Leicester Ford, The Adoption of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, Political Science Quarterly, x, 426.

29 Proceedings relative to calling the conventions of 1776 and 1790, pp. 129-137.

sors had proven ineffective, and these councils were finally discarded. 24

The Georgia constitution of 1777 made provision for a constitutional convention, which should be called upon the petition of a majority of the voters of a majority of the counties. The petitions of the people were to specify the amendments desired and the legislature was required to order the calling of a convention, "specifying the alterations to be made according to the petitions preferred to the assembly by the majority of the counties as aforesaid." This method of initiating constitutional changes was extremely cumbersome, and would probably have proven unworkable had it been tried. However, no effort seems to have been made to use the constitutional method of revision. In 1788, when it was desired to revise the constitution of 1777, the legislature of the state named three persons from each county to meet and take into consideration amendments necessary to be made in the constitution. The convention so constituted met and framed a constitution, which was referred by the legislature to another convention composed of three persons elected from each county. The second convention amended the proposed constitution, and a third convention chosen by the people was authorized by the legislature to adopt the constitution, with or without the amendments proposed by the second convention. This third convention ratified the Georgia constitution of 1789.25

Except for the constitutions of Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Georgia, the only constitutions of the revolutionary period which made provision for the calling of constitutional

24 See The Council of Censors, by Lewis Hamilton Meader, Providence, 1899. (Papers from the Historical Seminary of Brown University.)

25 Jameson, Constitutional Conventions, 135, 136.

conventions were those of Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The Massachusetts constitution of 1780 made provision for the submission to the people in 1795 of the question as to the desirability of revising the constitution, and if the vote were favorable, a convention was to be called. No convention was called in 1795, and after that date no constitutional provisions were in force in Massachusetts with reference to the calling of a constitutional convention. The New Hampshire constitution of 1784 provided for the calling of a convention in seven years, if a popular vote should favor such action, and the amended constitution of 1792 provided for a vote of the people every seven years upon the question as to whether a constitutional convention should be called. But of the revolutionary frames of government which continued after 1784, four made no provision whatever for constitutional changes;20 and three others made no provision for revision by constitutional conventions, providing simply for amendment through legislative action. Moreover, of later constitutions many have made no provision for revision by conventions. Among these may be mentioned Georgia (1798), Connecticut (1818), New York (1821), Missouri (1820), Rhode Island (1842), Pennsylvania (1790, 1838, 1873), Virginia (1830, 1851, 1864), Vermont (1870), Arkansas (1868, 1874), Tennessee (1834), Texas (1868), and Louisiana (1845, 1851, 1864, 1868, 1879, 1898). Twelve of the state constitutions now in force contain no provision whatever for constitutional conventions.27 When, in states having no provision

26 Of later constitutions no provisions for constitutional change of any character were made by those of Virginia, 1830, 1851 and 1864, and Pennsylvania, 1790.

27 Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont. For a list of constitutions containing no provision for con

for conventions, need was felt for a constitutional revision, the question necessarily arose as to whether conventions might be called in spite of the absence of constitutional authorization to do so. It has now become the established rule that where the constitution contains no provision for the calling of a convention, but has no provision expressly confining amendment to a particular method, the legislature may provide by law for the calling of a convention— that is, the enactment of such a law is within the power of the legislature unless expressly forbidden, and is considered a regular exercise of legislative power. Judge Jameson calls attention to twenty-seven conventions which have met without there being any authority in the constitutions for their assembling,28 and since he wrote there have been at least three cases of the same character-Mississippi in 1890, Louisiana in 1898, and Connecticut in 1902. Of the twelve states which have no express constitutional provisions for the calling of conventions, precedents in eight or nine seem to be practically conclusive in favor of the legislative power

ventions see Jameson, Constitutional Conventions, 551. The Oregon constitution of 1857 contained no provision for a convention, but such a provision was introduced by an amendment of 1906.

28 Jameson, 210. In fact in Delaware where the constitution of 1776 provided that the constitution should not be "altered, changed or diminished, without the consent of five parts in seven of the assembly, and seven members of the legislative council," the legislature of that state in 1791 called a constitutional convention in spite of the provision that the constitution should be altered in only one way. So also the Maryland legislature called the convention of 1850, although the constitution of 1776 specifically provided that the constitution should be altered only by a bill passed by two successive general assemblies of that state. The Georgia constitution of 1798 contained a provision with respect to amendment similar to that in the Maryland constitution of 1776, but in this state also conventions were nevertheless held.

to act in this matter without express authorization;20 in the three others 30 there are no precedents, although the question of holding a convention was twice submitted to the people of Rhode Island in 1853; and the Vermont constitutional commission in its report of January 6, 1910, suggests that a general constitutional revision should be left to a convention, and speaks as if there were no doubt as to the power to hold a convention in that state.

The only authorities which may be cited against the legislative power to call conventions, where the constitutions do not expressly give such power, are opinions rendered by the judges of the supreme courts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, in 1833 and 1883 respectively, in response to questions submitted by the legislative bodies of these states. The Massachusetts judges thought that there was no power to adopt specific amendments except in the manner provided by the constitution, but did not express any opinion upon the question whether a convention might be called for a general constitutional revision;31 their opinion cannot therefore be cited in support of the view that a convention may not be called for a general revision without constitutional authorization, and such a convention was in fact held in Massachusetts in 1853. The Rhode Island opinion of 1883,32 however, is explicit in its advocacy of the view that a convention could not properly be called in that state because the constitution gave no express authority for revision by a convention. This Rhode Island expression is the

29 Arkansas, Connecticut, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, and probably Indiana.

30 Rhode Island under constitution of 1842; Vermont under constitution as amended in 1870; North Dakota under the constitution of 1889.