Yont v. Sec'y of Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 02 May 1931
• Citation: 176 N.E. 1,275 Mass. 365
• Parties: YONT et al. v. SECRETARY OF COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

275 Mass. 365

176 N.E. 1

YONT et al.

v.SECRETARY OF COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 2, 1931.

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County; Crosby, Judge.

Original proceeding by Alonzo E. Yont and other for a writ of mandamus to the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

Petition dismissed.

S. S. von Loesecke and A. E. Yont, both of Boston, for petitioners.

R. Clapp, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

RUGG, C. J.

There was enacted by the General Court on March 24, 1931, and approved by the Governor on the same day, ‘An Act providing a Program for the Acceleration of State Highway and Building Construction, in order to alleviate the Present Unemployment Emergency, and for furnishing Certain Temporary Financial Relief to Cities and Towns, to be financed by the Issue of Short Term Notes and from the Proceeds of an Increase in the Gasoline Tax.’ St. 1931, c. 122. The Act contained an emergency preamble in these words: ‘Whereas, the deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience.’ By virtue of this preamble, the act became effective forthwith. Article 48 of the Amendments to the Constitution ‘The Referendum. 1. When Statutes shall take Effect’; ‘2. Emergency Measures.’ Article 67 of the Amendments to the Constitution. Rosenthal v. Liss, 269 Mass. 373, 169 N. E. 142. On March 27, 1931, the petitioners filed with the respondent a petition asking for the repeal of said chapter 122 and for a referendum thereon. Article 48 of the Amendments to the Constitution, ‘The Referendum,’ ‘3. Referendum Petitions,’ §§ 1, 4. No question is made as to the form of the petition. The respondent refused to provide blanks for the use of subsequent signers of the petition. This proceeding by mandamus is brought to compel the respondent to provide such blanks.

The single point at issue is whether said chapter 122 falls within the matters excluded from the operation of the referendum. The governing words in article 48 of the Amendments, ‘The Referendum,’ ‘3. Referendum Petitioners,’ section 2, ‘Excluded Matters,’ are these: ‘No law * * * that appropriates money for the current or ordinary expenses of the commonwealth or for any of its departments, boards, commissions or institutions shall be the subject of a referendum petition.’

An amendment to the Constitution is a solemn and important declaration of fundamental principles of government. It is characterized by terse statements of clear significance. Its words were employed in a plain meaning to express general ideas. It was written to be understood by the voters to whom it was submitted for approval. It is to be interpreted in the sense most obvious to the common intelligence. Its phrases are to be read and construed according to the familiar and approved usage of the language. Jones v. Robbins, 8 Gray, 329, 340; Tax Commissioner v. Putnam, 227 Mass. 522, 523, 524, 116 N. E. 904, L. R. A. 1917F, 806;Attorney General v. Methuen, 236 Mass. 564, 573,129 N. E. 662;Loring v. Young, 239 Mass. 349, 372, 132 N. E. 65;United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 51 S. Ct. 220, 75 L. Ed. 640.

The matters excluded from the referendum by the clause of article 48 of the Amendments already quoted relate to appropriations made by the General Court. That clause falls into two subdivisions: The first comprehends laws which appropriate money for the current or ordinary expenses of the commonwealth; the second comprehends laws which appropriate money for any of the departments, boards, commissions or institutions of the commonwealth. A clear separation thus is made between these two classes of appropriations. The distinction is drawn between appropriations for the current and ordinary expenses of the commonwealth, on the one hand, and appropriations for the departments and other subsidiary divisions of the undertakings of the commonwealth, on the other hand. Both article 48 of the Amendments, relating to the initiative and referendum, and article 66 of the Amendments, requiring that the executive and administrative work of the commonwealth be organized into not more than twenty departments, were submitted to the people and ratified and adopted by them on November 5, 1918. Considering them together, it seems clear that the second branch of matters excluded from the referendum by the clause already quoted from article 48 has relation to the departments, boards and commissions described in article 66. For several reasons it is not permissible to interpret the word ‘departments' used in the relevant clause of article 48 as comprehending the three grand departments of government described in articles 5 and 30 of the Declaration of Rights. In article 5, the ‘authority’ derived from the ‘power residing originally in the people’ and vested in ‘the several magistrates and officers of government’ is described as ‘legislative, executive, or judicial.’ The word ‘department’ is not used. The word ‘department’ is used in article 30. It there embraces, as applies respectively to ‘the legislative department,’ ‘the executive,’and ‘the judicial,’ all the functions of the government of the commonwealth. Although the same word in the plural is found in the clause already quoted from article 48 of the Amendments, it manifestly is there used in a much more restricted sense. To give the word an identical meaning in both article 30 of the Bill of Rights and article 48 of the Amendments would wipe out the distinction drawn in the latter article between appropriations for expenses of the commonwealth and appropriations for expenses of departments, boards, commissions and institutions. That distinction is in article 48. It cannot be ignored. It must be recognized and enforced. To attribute the same meaning to the word in both articles would also render superfluous and of no signification the remaining descriptive words in the relevant clause of article 48 of the Amendments, namely: ‘Boards, commissions or institutions.’ Every part, clause, phrase and word of the Constitution and its Amendments must be given meaning commensurate with the importance of the instrument of government in which it occurs.

The established and recognized rules of grammatical construction require that the words ‘current or ordinary expenses' in the quoted clause of article 48 refer to and modify the words ‘of the commonwealth’ immediately following, and do not extend to appropriations ‘for any of its departments, boards, commissions or institutions.’ The word ‘for’ precedes each division of the quoted clause and marks the difference between the two branches of that clause. Appropriations ‘for the current or ordinary expenses of the commonwealth’ alone are excluded from the operation of the referendum by the quoted clause, while appropriations ‘for any of its departments, boards, commissions or institutions,’ whether for current or ordinary expenses, or for exceptional or momentous expenses, are excluded from the operation of the referendum.

The debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1917-1918 demonstrate that the distinction between the two branches of the relevant clause of article 48 was discussed and clearly stated while that Amendment was being considered. The corresponding clause of the resolution for establishing the initiative and referendum reported by the committee of the whole of the convention was in these words: ‘No law, appropriating money for the current or ordinary expenses of the Commonwealth or of any of its departments, boards, commissions or institutions * * * shall be the subject of such referendum petition.’ Volume 2, Debates of the Constitutional Convention, 677. An amendment was offered striking out the words ‘of any’ and inserting in place thereof the words ‘for any.’ The proposed amendment was the subject of discussion. Arguments were put forward in favor of and against its adoption. It was clearly pointed out that the words of the clause in the resolution as reported by the committee would permit a referendum on every appropriation except for current and ordinary...