Combs v. Gray
Decision Date | 12 April 1926 |
Docket Number | 308,300 |
Citation | 281 S.W. 918,170 Ark. 956 |
Parties | COMBS v. GRAY |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division; John W. Wade Judge; affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
T. A Gray filed his petition in the circuit court against Harvey G. Combs, as Secretary of the Arkansas State Democratic Central Committee, to compel him to accept the pledge of the petitioner and the fee required to place his name on the Democratic ticket as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor.
His cause of action is based upon the ground that the office of Lieutenant Governor was created by the adoption of proposed Amendment No. 16 of the Constitution. The amendment was submitted to the voters by the General Assembly of 1913, and was voted on at the general election held in 1914.
The record shows that a majority of the qualified electors who voted at said election upon the proposed amendment, voted in favor of it, but that it did not receive a majority of all the qualified electors of the State who voted at said general election held in 1914.
Amendment No. 16 was proposed by the Legislature of 1913 as an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas to be submitted to the electors of the State for approval or rejection at the next general election, which was held in 1914. Inasmuch as only the question of whether the proposed amendment was adopted or not is an issue in this case, it need not be set out in full, but will be cited as being in the Acts of Arkansas 1913, p. 1527.
The circuit court held that the amendment was legally adopted and that it is now a part of our State Constitution. Judgment was rendered accordingly, and to reverse that judgment this appeal has been prosecuted.
Judgment affirmed.
Harvey G. Combs and Tom W. Campbell, for appellant.
T. A. Gray, E. L. McHaney and Walter J. Terry, for appellee.
OPINION
HART, J., (after stating the facts).
The correctness of the decision of the circuit court that proposed Amendment No. 16 was legally adopted and that it is now a part of our State Constitution depends upon the construction to be placed upon what has been commonly referred to as Amendment No. 10, or the Initiative and Referendum Amendment, in connection with our various decisions construing the same. Amendment No. 10 has been placed among the amendments to the Constitution in Crawford & Moses' Digest, and called by the digesters Amendment No. 7.
Inasmuch as the amendment must be considered in connection with article 19, § 22, of the Constitution, for the sake of convenience both will be set out in this opinion. Art. 19, § 22, of the Constitution reads as follows:
Amendment No. 7 reads as follows:
Article 5, § 1, amended:
In the early history of this court, in State v. Scott, 9 Ark. 270, a safe rule of constitutional construction with reference to amendments to the Constitution was stated as follows:
Practically the same rule was adopted in Hodges v. Dawdy, 104 Ark. 583, 149 S.W. 656, where what is commonly called the Initiative and Referendum Amendment now under consideration was before the court for construction. The court said:
One or the other of these modes of expressing the same practical rule of construction has been cited with approval in all subsequent decisions relating to the amendment now under consideration.
In the cases of Ferrell v. Keel, 105 Ark. 380, 151 S.W. 269, and Brickhouse v. Hill, 167 Ark. 513, 268 S.W. 865, the rule in the Scott case was quoted with approval, and in the Keel case it was said that no better rule of construction has ever been proposed at any time or any place. Practically the same rule as expressed in the Hodges case has been approved in the cases of State ex rel. v. Donaghey, 106 Ark. 56, 152 S.W. 746; Grant v. Hardage, 106 Ark. 506, 153 S.W. 826; and Hildreth v. Taylor, 117 Ark. 465, 175 S.W. 40.
In the Donaghey case, it was held that the Initiative and Referendum Amendment now under consideration did not abrogate § 22, art. 19, of the Constitution, which provides that no more than three amendments shall be proposed or submitted at the same time. The court was of the opinion that, in the absence of anything in the amendment conferring initiative and referendum powers indicating an intention to repeal the existing constitutional provision, the latter remained in force and governed in all cases relating to the submission of amendments to the Constitution.
In the Hardage case it was held that, because the Initiative and Referendum Amendment provided that initiative petitions shall be filed with the Secretary of State not less than four months before the election at which they are to be voted on this language should be given its ordinary and natural meaning, and should govern in cases where amendments to the Constitution are submitted under the initiative. The court expressly refrained from deciding whether this provision was inconsistent with or repugnant to the provision in art. 19, § 22, providing for six months'...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lybrand v. Wafford
... ... 230 S.W. 550; Matheny v. Independence ... County, 169 Ark. 925, 277 S.W. 22; Babb v ... El Dorado, 170 Ark. 10, 278 S.W. 649; Combs ... v. Gray, 170 Ark. 956, 281 S.W. 918 ... The ... provisions of the Constitution of 1874 and all the amendments ... ...
-
Lybrand v. Wafford
...230 S. W. 550; Matheny v. Independence County, 169 Ark. 925, 277 S. W. 22; Babb v. El Dorado, 170 Ark. 10, 278 S. W. 649; Combs v. Gray, 170 Ark. 956, 281 S. W. 918. The provisions of the Constitution of 1874 and all the amendments thereto relating to the debts of municipal corporations, co......
-
Jackson v. Madison County
...Scott, 9 Ark. 270; Ferrill v. Keel, 105 Ark. 380, 151 S.W. 269; Kirk v. High, 169 Ark. 152, 273 S.W. 389, 41 A. L. R. 783; Combs v. Gray, 170 Ark. 956, 281 S.W. 918; Pioneer Construction Co. v. Madison 174 Ark. 298, 296 S.W. 729; and Polk County v. Mena Star Co., ante p. 76. In other words,......
-
Bryant v. English
...See 1913 Ark. Acts 1527. Amendment 6 was submitted to, and approved by, the voters at the 1914 general election. See Combs v. Gray, 170 Ark. 956, 281 S.W. 918 (1926), for additional history of the Amendment 6, section 4 provides: "In the case of the [resignation] of the Governor, ... the po......