Ramsey v. Persinger

Decision Date05 May 1914
Docket NumberCase Number: 6029
Citation141 P. 13,43 Okla. 41,1914 OK 205
PartiesRAMSEY et al. v. PERSINGER et al. (SCOTT et al., Interveners).
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- Amendment -- Procedure -- Statutes. The provisions of chapter 44, Sess. Laws 1907-08 (sections 3379, 3382-3384, Rev. Laws 1910), do not furnish a procedure to secure an expression of the voters on a constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature as provided in section 1, art. 24, of the Constitution of Oklahoma.

2. SAME--Election--Ballots. Ballot title examined, and held sufficient.

3. STATUTES--Title--Joint Resolution. A title stating the object of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution, is not necessary; the same not being ordinary legislation.

4. STATUTES--Time of Taking Effect--Submission of Constitutional Amendment. Where the Legislature, by a two-thirds vote of each house, by resolution, orders a proposed amendment to the Constitution submitted at a special election to be held at a time named therein, section 58, art. 6, of the Constitution does not apply.

5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--Amendment--Agreement of Legislature. Where the Legislature, by two-thirds vote, adopts a joint resolution directing the Secretary of State to submit a constitutional amendment to the people under section 1, art. 24, of the Constitution, held, that the Legislature thereby agrees to such proposed amendment.

6. SAME--Adoption--Validity. Where substantially every constitutional and statutory requirement is met, no fraud or deceit being charged, a large majority of those voting at the special election August 5, 1913, voting in favor of the adoption of amendment to section 31, art. 6, of the Constitution, as proposed by the Legislature, held, said amendment was legally adopted.

Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Geo. W. Clark, Judge.

Quo warranto by J. H. Persinger, Roscoe Thomas, J. C. Elliott, I. G. Griffin, Robert Scivally, T. N. Roach, George W. Vincent, George H. Hinds, John B. Favor, and W. T. Leahy against G. A. Ramsey, J. F. Darby, I. C. Renfrow, Frank M. Gault, and G. T. Bryan, and Charles E. Scott, J. W. Hubbard, J. W. Allison, J. B. Swartz, Ewers White, G. M. Snider, J. B. Tosh, and J. G. Willis intervene. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and S.E. McElhoes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiffs in error

Ledbetter, Stuart & Bell and Giddings & Giddings, for defendants in error

Freeman E. Miller, for interveners

LOOFBOURROW, J.

¶1 The de facto members of the Board of Agriculture of the state of Oklahoma, under section 31, art. 6, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, as amended at the general state election November 5, 1912, consisted of the above-named defendants in error and G. T. Bryan, president of said board, one of the plaintiffs in error, who was made defendant on the trial of this cause for the reason that he affiliated with plaintiffs in error and recognized them as the official Board of Agriculture.

¶2 On May 7, 1913, the House of Representatives, as shown by their Journal, p. 767, passed a resolution providing for the submission of the proposed amendment to the Constitution, amending section 31, art. 6, relating to the Board of Agriculture, same being House Joint Resolution No. 4.

¶3 On June 30, 1913, the following action was had by the Senate, as appears at page 1700 of the Senate Journal:

"On motion of Senator Barrett, House Joint Resolution No. 4 was advanced to engrossment and third reading. House Joint Resolution was read the third time. Senator Barrett offered the following amendment:
"'Oklahoma City, Okla., June 30, 1913.
"'Mr. President: I move to amend House Joint Resolution No. 4 to read as follows: Be it resolved by the House of Representatives and Senate of the Fourth Legislature, that the Secretary of State is hereby instructed to prepare and submit to the people of Oklahoma for approval or rejection at the special election to be held August 5, 1913, the following proposed section to the Constitution. The section to be submitted shall be numbered section 31, art. 6, and if adopted shall be in lieu of section 31, art. 6, of the present Constitution, and shall read as follows: Section 31. A Board of Agriculture is hereby created to be composed of five members all of whom shall be farmers and shall be selected in manner prescribed by law. Said board shall be maintained as a part of the state government, and shall have jurisdiction over all matters affecting animal industry and animal quarantine regulation, and shall be the Board of Regents of all State Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges, and shall discharge such other duties and receive such compensation as now is, or may hereafter be, provided by law. Barrett.'
"Senator Barrett moved the adoption of the amendment. Vote was taken, and the motion carried.
"The question being, 'Shall the resolution pass as amended?' the roll was called with the following result:
"Yeas: * * * Total, 28.
"Nays: * * * Total, 2.
"Excused: * * * Total, 5.
"Absent: * * * Total, 5.
"The Chair declared the resolution, having received a constitutional majority, had carried.
"The question being, 'Shall the special election be ordered held on Tuesday, August 5, 1913, for the purpose of submitting said proposed amendment to the people for their approval or rejection?' the roll was called; the vote resulting as follows:
"Yeas: * * * Total, 30.
"Nays: * * * Total, 0.
"Excused: * * * Total, 5.
"Absent: * * * Total, 5.
"The Chair declared the special election ordered.
"House Joint Resolution No. 4 as amended was signed by the President pro tempore in open session and ordered transmitted to the House."

¶4 On page 1389 of the House Journal appears the following:

"'Mr. Speaker of the House of Representatives: I am directed by the honorable Senate to transmit herewith House Joint Resolution No. 4 as amended by the Senate and to inform you that said resolution has passed the Senate as amended and signed by the President pro tempore in open session. Most respectfully, Ned McDaniels, Secretary of the Senate.'
"On motion of Mr. Pruett, the House concurred in the Senate amendments to House Joint Resolution No. 4.
"The question being, 'Shall House Joint Resolution No. 4 as amended by the Senate pass?' the following roll call resulted:
"Ayes: * * * Total, 66.
"Nays: * * * Total, none.
"Absent: * * * Total, 31.
"The Speaker declared the resolution as amended, having received a majority of the votes of all the members elected to and constituting the House of Representatives, passed.
"The Speaker stated the question, 'Shall constitutional amendment provided for in House Joint Resolution No. 4 be submitted at the special election to be held throughout the state on August 5, 1914?' and the roll being had thereon resulted as follows:
"Ayes: * * * Total, 66.
"Nays: * * * None.
"Absent: * * * Total, 31.
"The Speaker declared the question to submit the constitutional amendment provided for in House Joint Resolution No. 4, at the special election to be held throughout the state on August 5, 1913, passed."

¶5 On page 1392 of the House Journal appears the following:

"The following committee report was read:
"'Mr. Speaker: We, your committee on enrollment, report * * * House Joint Resolution No. 4 * * * correctly enrolled. Cordell, Chairman.'
"The Speaker signed the enrolled copy of * * * House Joint Resolution No. 4 * * * in open session after reading at length."

¶6 On page 1399 of the House Journal appears the following:

"The following message was received from the Governor:
"'July 5, 1913.
"'To the House of Representatives of the Fourth Legislative Assembly in Extraordinary Session Assembled: This is to advise you that I have signed and approved bills as follows: * * * July 1, 1913. * * * Committee substitute for House Joint Resolution No. 4, by Lenox et al. * * * Sincerely yours, Lee Cruce, Governor of the State of Oklahoma.'"

¶7 Thereafter the following ballot title was prepared and placed upon ballots voted at the special election held throughout the state on August 5, 1913, viz.:

"Ballot Title.
"State Question No. 60. Issued by Order of the Legislature.
"The gist of the proposition is to create a new Board of Agriculture of five instead of eleven members and repeal all that portion of section thirty-one of article six of the Constitution except the first subdivision thereof, that is, to repeal all that portion dealing with any matter except the number and qualification as members of the Board of Agriculture and prescribing their jurisdiction and duties.

¶8 Yes [ ]

"Shall it be adopted

¶9 No [ ]

¶10 Said election was held, the returns canvassed, and the said constitutional amendment was declared adopted. The Governor appointed plaintiffs in error members of said board. Thereafter the defendants in error commenced a quo warranto proceeding against the plaintiffs in error, and the interveners intervened, claiming to be the de jure members of said board; the petition of interveners was dismissed, without prejudice, by the trial court, and the demurrer of plaintiffs in error to the petition of defendants in error was overruled. The plaintiffs in error electing to stand upon said demurrer, judgment was rendered against them, ousting Darby, Gault, Renfrow, and Ramsey, and finding and decreeing defendants in error to be the de jure Board of Agriculture; from which judgment plaintiffs in error appeal, and the same is now before us for review, the paramount question being the validity of the said constitutional amendment.

¶11 The Constitution of this state may be amended, first, under article 5, sec. 2, of the Constitution, by initiative petition, signed by fifteen per cent. of the legal voters of the state, etc., said petition originating at the suggestion or initiative of the petitioners; second, under the provisions of section 3395, Rev. Laws 1910, the Legislature...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • In re Initiative Petition No. 379
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • December 12, 2006
    ...Cushing, 1932 OK 124, ¶ 0, 10 P.2d 271; In re State Question No. 137, Referendum Petition No. 49, 1926 OK 222, ¶ 0, 244 P. 806; Ramsey v. Persinger, 1914 OK 205, ¶ 63, 141 P. 13; Lowther v. Nissley, 1913 OK 493, ¶ 11, 135 P. 3; City of Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co., 1911 OK 124, ¶ 8, 1......
  • 2, Cushing v. Harlow (In re Number)
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • February 16, 1932
    ...v. Estes, 43 Okla. 213, 142 P. 411; In re Referendum Petition No. 30, State Question No. 94, 71 Okla. 91, 175 P. 500; Ramsey v. Persinger, 43 Okla. 41, 141 P. 13. Under the plain language of the statute and the former decisions of this court we see no good reason why the parties should have......
  • Ramsey v. Persinger
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • May 5, 1914

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT