4

the cause of the enormous debt now overhanging almost every county government in the state may be readily and entirely removed. Believing, however, that we are not required to examine specially into the necessity for the call of a convention, but that this constitutional duty has been performed by our immediate predecessors, in the passage of the act of March 1, 1857, submitting the question to the people, we will proceed to the consideration of the questions said to be involved in the passage of the act herewith reported. Our present constitution declares in section two, of article ten, that "If at any time two-thirds of the Senate and Assembly shall think it necessary to revise and change this entire constitution, they shall recommend to the electors, at the next election for members of the Legislature, to vote for or against a convention, and if it shall appear that a majority of the electors, voting at such election, have voted in favor of calling a convention, the Legislature shall, at its next session, provide by law for calling a convention, etc."

The above is an exact copy of the Michigan constitution, under which a convention was called in that state in 1849; the board of canvassers, in order to determine whether the people had constitutionally called a convention, counted only the votes cast for and against a convention, and none other, and determined and declared that it had been called. The language used by the board of canvassers of Michigan, is the construction of this section of our constitution by the people who first framed it, and to all unprejudiced minds should be satisfactory on this point, to wit:

"STATE OF MICHIGAN-SS.

"We, the undersigned, in pursuance of law, this fifteenth day of December, A. D. 1849, at the office of Secretary of State, examined the votes given in the several counties at the general election, holden on the sixth day of November, 1849, for and against a convention, to be called for the purpose of making a general revision of the constitution of this state, and made out a correct statement of the whole number of votes cast at such election for and against said convention, and certified such statement to be correct, and subscribed our names thereto; and it appearing from such canvass and statement that the greatest number of votes were given in favor of said convention, do hereby determine that said convention has been duly called according to the provisions of the second section of the thirteenth article of the constitution of the state.

It is impossible to mistake this language. The people of Michigan then understood the same section in their constitution to require only a majority of those voting on the question to favor a convention in order to its call. Are we to pretend a more thorough understanding of their constitution than they had--and at the same time by copying after them, acknowledge their superiority in its framing? Your committee hardly think it necessary to go further than to refer to this precedent to settle this question; but knowing the policy and tone of a majority of the presses of this state, (as we believe without mature consideration,) to be against the position we occupy, it may be necessary to scan the language of section two of article tenth, of our constitution, independent of precedent.

We are clearly of the opinion that the words "at the next election for members of the Assembly," in this section, are used for the purpose of fixing the time when the vote or election for or against a convention shall take place, for the reason that similar if not the identical language is used for this purpose in other

Tho wando Wench election " hu all the rules of con

5

which it is used, if any is thereby created. Now is there an election created and appointed by the second section of article ten? If so the words "such election refer to it and cannot refer to any other. Most certainly not to the "election for members of Assembly," which is mentioned incidentally.

This section further declares that the Legislature shall recommend to the people "to vote for or against a convention." Do not these words mean that the people are requested to exercise their judgment and discretion in making a choice -an election-for or against a convention.

With the like effect in the use of language, and with the same force that an election for Governor is created and appointed by section two of article five, of the constitution, an election for and against a convention is created and appointed by section two of article ten.

If we are right in this, "such election" means the election "for and against a convention," and a majority of the votes thereon in the meaning of the constitution is all that is necessary to call a convention. A constitution is a complete and perfect whole. No portion is to be inoperative or treated as surplusage if it can possibly be used. Nor is any portion of it to be so construed as to require a useless thing to be done; otherwise our fundamental law may be more loosely construed than the rules permit us to construe ordinary statutes, which is most certainly not the case.

After a careful examination of the different constitutions of the states of the Union, we find that wherever, as in the Kentucky constitution, it was the evident and unequivocal intention in the mode of revision provided in those instruments to require a majority of the aggregate vote of the state to call a convention, the question was never required to be submitted in the alternative, but authority was given the Legislature to recommend a vote to be taken for a convention only, and not against it. Provision is also made explicitly and with care for ascertaining the aggregate vote of the state, so as to determine whether a majority of the whole was for a convention.

Now, in our constitution, no provision is made for ascertaining the aggregate rote of the state. Without such provision given in that instrument, (the constitution-held to be correct by those who disagree with us) it is impossible to regard our constitution as complete; and it is in this particular inoperative, or at least we are left in doubt and uncertainty as to the manner of ascertaining the whole vote, a majority of which is necessary to call a convention. The Legislature being required to recommend to the people "to vote for and against a convention," we must ask, why recommended to vote against it, if all who do not vote are counted as voting against the convention? Why provide that the Legislature shall do a useless thing? Why induce the people to do, not only a useless, but ridiculous act-that is to vote--when not to vote is equivalent ?

This is certainly contrary to the rule, "that the law does not require a useless thing to be done." As we understand section two, article ten, the recommendation to the people is as much that they vote against, as for, the convention; and under this construction, making it as much a necessary act to vote against as to vote for the convention, in order to give expression to a choice, the provisions of the constitution are an entirety, and complete.

If an elector fails, neglects, or declines to have an opinion upon this question, where does the Legislature derive authority to exercise his judgment for him? or if an elector has an opinion, but declines to express it, how shall we compel him to disclose it? In all elections held under a republican government, an opportunity is afforded to all entitled thereto, to make known their choice and wishes; and if they do not exercise this franchise, it is presumed that they have made their election to remain silent-whilst they abide the election made by their fellow-citizens who do chose to vote.