36

amendment to be initiated by a majority vote of each house, while in twenty-eight a vote greater than a majority is required; twenty providing for a two-thirds vote and eight for a three-fifths vote of each house.38 The prevailing length of publication is three months,3 only six providing for a different time."

41

39

As to the provisions for a popular vote on these amendments, all prescribe a majority vote; but twenty prescribe that this shall be a majority of electors "voting thereon," six a majority voting "for representatives,"+2 four a majority voting "at said election,"43 three an absolute majority of electors," and two simply provide for submission, without specifying; therefore in these last the majority required would depend on judicial interpretation. 45

1876; Ohio, 1851, XVI; S. Dak., 1889; Tex., 1876, XVII; Wash., 1889, XXIII; W. Va., 1872, XIV; Wy., 1889, XX.

36 Mo., 1865, 1875; Ark., 1874; La., 1864; Minn., 1857, 1874: S. Dak., 1889.

37 Miss., 1832, 1868, 1890; Mont., 1889; Tex., 1876; Wash., 1889; W. Va., 1872; Wy., 1889; Ala., 1875; Cal., 1880; Colo., 1876; Ga., 1877; Idaho, 1889; Ill., 1870; Kans., 1859; La., 1852, 1868, 1879; Me., 1819; Mich., 1856.

38 Neb., 1875: Ohio, 1851; N. C., 1876; Ga., 1885; Ky., 1891; Kans., 1858; Md., 1864; Md., 1867.

39 Miss., 1890: Mont., 1889; Neb., 1870; Tex., 1876; Wash., 1889; W. Va., 1872; Wy., 1889; Colo., 1876; Fla., 1885; Ill., 1870; Kans., 1858, 1859; La., 1852, 1868, 1879; Md., 1864, 1867; S. Dak., 1889.

40 Ohio, 1851; Ark., 1874, provide that publication shall be made at least six months. Mo., 1865, provides at least four months. Ga., 1877, provides at least two months. Idaho, 1889, provides at least six times. Mo., 1875, provides for publication in each county four weeks prior to election. La., 1864, requires at least thirty days.

41 Miss., 1832, 1890; Mo., 1865; Wash., 1889; W. Va., 1872; Ark., 1874; Cal., 1880; Colo., 1876; Fla., 1885; Ga., 1877; Kans., 1858, 1859; Ky., 1891; La., 1879; Me., 1819; Md., 1864; Mich., 1856; Minn., 1857, 1874; S. Dak., 1889.

42 Miss., 1868; Ala., 1875; Ill., 1870; La., 1852, 1864, 1868.

43 Neb., 1875; Ohio, 1851; Tex., 1876; Md., 1867.

44 Idaho, 1889; N. C., 1876; Wy., 1889.

45 Mont., 1889; Mo., 1875.

In this class of amendatory devices it would appear that the details are very much reduced and the time shortened at least one legislative period. While the rule of progress is subserved by making amendatory provisions that will allow the governmental structure to be modified to suit the progress of the age, the rule of law and order is also preserved by placing such changes beyond the action both of political parties and governmental agents.

As shown before, the initiative in nearly all of these constitutions can be taken only by a two-thirds or a three-fifths vote of each branch of the legislature; after this from one to two years must elapse before it can be submitted to the people, thus giving time for mature deliberation and the subsidence of any popular fervor that might have given rise to the proposed amendment. Change by act of the established government is prevented by requiring a vote of the people, but in most of those constitutions a majority of those voting is sufficient to ratify and adopt. It has been found by experience that it is much more safe to presume that those not voting do not oppose an amendment than to require the actual assent of an absolute majority of all voters, for the reason that the electors are not apt to give attention to balloting on amendments during the excitement of an election unless they deem them opposed to their welfare.

Comparing these three classes chronologically, we find that the amendatory devices of the first class prevailed in the second quarter of the century; that the second class was chiefly employed in the '60s, and that the third class prevailed in the third and fourth quarters of the century.

Arranging these provisions for constitutional amendment in their respective classes by decades, the comparison is as follows:

Taking the prominent periods of their use, we find that all but four of the first class were adopted in the fifty years between 1820-69, inclusive, while all but two of the third class were adopted within the period from 1850-95, inclusive.

Comparing them from the standpoint of complexity, it appears that the first class-that is, the first from an evolutionary standpoint-is much more involved than the second, and that the second is more involved than the third; that there has been a progression in the direction of greater simplicity.

The last has been found also to be the most expeditious; it is operated with greater economy both of time and effort. At the same time the experience of the past has proven that this more simple and more direct Imethod is a safe device for constitutional amendment; that it provides a means of adapting our institutions to the progress of the age with greater advantage to society than any of the preceding devices.

Summarizing the evolution of our institutions relative to the co-operation of the people in establishing their frame of government and in modifying its structure so as to adapt it to the growing needs of society, we find that some of our first constitutions were framed and adopted by popular assemblies, but that this method could not possibly be employed in large and widely scattered communities. That for the larger and more widely

distributed political bodies the representative principle was made use of. That in the first part of our constitutional period the representative, or delegate, was entrusted with this work. Gradually, however, as the representative and the delegate became further removed in their interests from the people, and as the interests of society grew more complex, as it became advantageous for the people to participate directly in the adoption of their fundamental law, they utilized their representatives as agents to formulate and report to them for adoption. Furthermore, it being desirable to have a rule of law to govern the formation of constitutions, this was established by them as the settled, legitimate rule to govern them in establishing new constitutional structures.

As to the minor changes, those which could be made by altering a small part of the general structure, there grew up a separate amendatory device whereby these lesser changes could be safely and economically effected, and the progress of constitutional development in this regard was along the line of increasing the power of the people and of giving to co-operation greater facility and expedition.

A rule of law, both safe and elastic, has thus been evolved from and brought into harmony with the rule of progress.

CHAPTER VI.

POPULAR CO-OPERATION IN THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS.

A frame of government must of necessity contain two kinds of provisions. It must provide corporate organs for the exercise of sovereign functions; it must also provide a means whereby these corporate organs may be manned. A governmental structure without living agents having power to operate its machinery would be but an inane, impotent figment of the mind.

The principle of sovereignty, in the evolution of political institutions, has been found to inhere in those organisms which have been able to manifest the greatest material force. At the time when the productive forces of society were disorganized, or organized in small, isolated communities, and self-government confined to local groups, the independent military organization that derived its resources from predation, by virtue of its being able to amass the greater strength, was supreme. Having established its supremacy, it then became competent to frame a government for the exercise of these sovereign powers, and by this means to retain a monopoly of government over the society which it ruled. History for many centuries was largely a record of conflicts between governments organized on this basis, and in the struggle for supremacy the necessity for resources of war and competence developed a wider and still wider organization of the industrial forces, till at last these forces obtained the mastery. Having obtained a mastery, the principle of self-interest, as manifested in expressions of the will of the majority, still compelled society along the course of established institutions.