網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Mr. PURCELL.

EVENING SESSION.

I move that we resolve ourselves into a Committee of the Whole and proceed to consider the report of the committee on Miscellaneous Subjects.

The motion was carried.

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.

File No. 36 was then read as follows:

SECTION 1. Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in either house of the General Assembly; and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment shall be entered on the Journal of each House, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and referred to the Legislature to be chosen at the next general election, and shall be published, as provided by law, for three months previous to the time of making such choice, and if in the General Assembly so next chosen as aforesaid, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each House, then it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the people in such manner and at such time as the General Assembly shall provide; and if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments by a majority of the electors qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly voting thereon, such amendment or amendments shall become a part of the Constitution of this State.

SEC. 2. If two or more amendments shall be substituted at the same time, they shall be submitted in such manner that the electors shall vote for or against each of such amendments separately.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I move to strike out the word "majority" in the third line and insert the word "two-thirds."

Mr. MOER. I should be opposed to that for the reason that according to this File it is submitted to two houses-first the house this year must ratify the proposed amendment and the house two years after must ratify it again, and it seems to me that after two houses of the Legislature have said that the proposed amendment shall be submitted, a majority is sufficient. That is the Iowa provision. If it is to be submitted to only one house then I think two-thirds is right, but if to two houses, then a majorty is right.

The amendment was lost.

The first section was adopted.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I desire to offer the following substitute for section two of the File.

"It shall be the duty of the Governor every seven years after the adoption of the Constitution to submit to the qualified voters of the State the following question: 'Shall a Convention be called to revise the Constitution.'

If it shall appear that the sense of the people has been taken, and that in the opinion of a majority of the qualified voters in the State, voting at said election, there is a necessity for a revision of the Constitution, it shall be the duty of the Governor to call a Convention for that purpose.

The delegates to be chosen in the same manner and proportioned as the members of the House of Representatives in the Legislative Assembly; Providing, That no amendment shall be made to this Constitution before the same shall be submitted to the people."

Mr. WILLIAMS. We ought to frame a fundamental law here that will meet with the approval of the people of this State, and if it is approved by the voters it ought not to be subject to amendment every year or second year. It strikes me that we will be able to frame such a law that the people of this State will be willing to leave intact for at least a few years. There should be something about our fundamental law which will be permanent and substantial, and the amendment is a provision which is found in several constitutions of the different states. It is simply for the purpose of having something that will stand for at least a few years. I believe the amendment is a wise one and should be adopted.

Mr. PURCELL. Do you offer that as a substitute for section two or a substitute for the whole article.

Mr. WILLIAMS. For section two. I understand that section one is adopted.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I am in favor of allowing the people to say when they please that a revision of this Constitution is necessary. I don't believe it is right to limit them to any particular period. If they desire to change the Constitution in two years they should have the privilege. Let them say for themselves when they desire a revision, and let it be done in accordance with the provisions of File No. 36, section one, which has just been adopted,

Mr. MOER. I am opposed to the substitute, and opposed to it for the reason that no matter what we may adopt in this Constitution at this time it will take us seven years to change it, and that I am not in favor of. We may desire to change something in this Constitution in a very much less time than seven years, and I apprehend that it is very likely that that will be the case. If the Legislature shall first recommend that we submit this question, that is one year. Then two years will have to elapse, and the next Legislature will have to say the same thing. Is not that notice enough to the people that there is a desire to change the fundamental law? It seems to me that this provision

should not prevail. Seven years is a good while before you can change the Constitution. It may be necessary to change it before that.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it will take four or five years before we can get any amendment under File No. 36. It seems to me that this Convention should be able to frame a fundamental law under which the people will be willing to live for a period of seven years, and then the question as to whether they will amend it is left to themselves. It is a provision found in a good many constitutions and as I understand it, it has been the desire of most Constitutional Conventions to frame a fundamental law that will meet with the approval of the people-such a fundamental law as they will be willing to live under for at least a few years. Under this proposed article it will take four or five years anyway for a change to be made, while under the substitute, at the end of seven years it is submitted to the people, and if there are serious objections and any desired amendments the people will say so, and a Constitutional Convention will then be held. There should be something settled-something permanent about our fundamental law, and if this section goes through as reported by the committee the matter will be up before every Legislature and be a matter for discussion. It seems to me there should be something more settled and more durable, and I believe this body has sufficient intelligence to frame a fundamental law under which the people will be willing to live for at least seven years.

Mr. MOER. I just want to call attention to the mistake the gentleman from Burleigh is laboring under. He says it will take us four or five years to change this Constitution. I apprehend that it will not take that time under the provisions of File No. 36. I apprehend that if the Legislature meets this year on the first day of January and decide to submit a question to the people, and two years from that date the next Legislature ratify the proposition-I apprehend that the following fall the people will vote upon the question and decide it. It may be very necessary that we should have a constitutional amendment. We are liable to make mistakes, and it seems to me we should not shut off the people of the State for seven years to come. It would only take us two years and some six or eight months to change the Constitution under File No. 36, and not four or five years. It may be necessary to change this Constitution in the next two or three years. Mr. LAUDER. I believe this amendment ought not to pre

vail for this reason-as we all know this is a new state. We are growing, and in all human probabilitiy great changes will take place in North Dakota within a shorter period than seven yearschanges which may render it necessary to amend this Constitution, and for that reason I think the people should have an opportunity to change their Constitution when the exigencies of the case may require it. It would be different if we were living in a state that had been settled for a long time and affairs of the State were settled-were in permanent condition. Things are shifting, moving, changing here now, and will for some time, and for that reason I believe we ought to leave this matter open so that the people may have an opportunity to vote almost any time. For my part I would be in favor of striking out the part of this section which requires that the proposed amendments shall pass two successive Legislatures. I think it would be better to strike it out, and when the Legislature has passed a proposed amendment it be submitted at once to the people. I am very much opposed to this amendment.

Mr. POLLOCK. As I understand this proposed substitute it would be impossible to amend the Constitution in any comparatively unimportant particular without calling a Constitutional Convention. For that reason I should oppose it for the reason that I would avoid the expense that would necessarily be incurred. There are many matters which may need changing within a short time and they may be comparatively unimportant, but under this substitute it would be necessary for a Constitutional Convention to come together at a large expense and propose this or that amendment. For that reason, if for no other, I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I proposed this amendment in order that we might have a few sessions of the Legislature that would be quiet, and whose whole interests would be devoted and directed to the passage of general laws affecting the interests of the people. We have to-day adopted a majority report of the Committee on Public Institutions. Perhaps if this section is not adopted that I have introduced, there might be a Legislature that would try to overturn everything that has been done there might be one a year from now that would make a similar attempt. I believe the action of this Convention has been wise in settling the location of these public institutions-taking the matter out of the hands of the Legislature, so that the Legislature will be free to act

passage of laws have offered is

for the interest of the people in the that are needed. This provision that I found in many of the Constitutions that have been adopted during the last few years. A fundamental law is one that it is not desirable to change very often, and most conventions which have been held of late years have made similar provisions. I believe this Convention will adopt a fundamental law under which the people of this State will be willing to live for seven years. If they do not, we shall fall far short of my expectations. I believe this Convention represents the best elements and best interests of the people of the proposed State of North Dakota. I believe the people will be glad to have the Constitution taken out of the hands of the four or five Legislatures which are to follow the sessions of this Convention. I therefore hope that the proposed substitute will be adopted.

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one question. With the exception of the State of New Hampshire, what states have such a provision in their constitutions?

Mr. McHUGH. I move that the consideration of this amendment be indefinitely postponed.

The motion was seconded and carried.

Mr. SCOTT. I am of the opinion that a mere majority of the Legislature to decide that a question of amending the Constitution, be submitted to a vote of the people, is not enough. That is all that this section prescribes. For that reason I would move an amendment to section one as follows: In line three strike out the word "majority" and substitute therefor "three-fifths."

Mr. MOER. I move that when the committee rise they recommend the indefinite postponement of the amendment.

The motion was seconded and carried.

Mr. SPALDING. I desire to offer an amendment to section two and a further section to this article. I desire to amend section two by inserting in lieu of "two or more" the words "no more than three amendments." I desire to add as section three an article offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Burleigh, with the amendment that seven years be stricken out and ten years take its place. I would say that I agree with the gentlemen who have spoken in this-that the condition of things in this new State is changing, and what may now be proper and best to be inserted in the fundamental law of the State may become obsolete in a few years, and for that reason I would leave it so that it will be possi

« 上一頁繼續 »