making cially true of the sections regulating local taxation and indebt- Lawedness. It is reported that when the sections relating to indebt- and elecedness were under discussion "one member after another had tions an exception to introduce and at last when a delegate protested against such special provisions, 20 cities or towns had been specially favored in the constitution." 1 In a constitution so detailed in many parts there will be frequent need for amendments. In most of these the voters will have no interest and can not be expected to vote on them intelligently, yet each amendment will have to receive a three fifths vote of the Legislature and a majority vote of all electors voting at the election. This will cumber the election machinery with votes on questions that might better be left to the Legislature and will often prevent much needed changes. If it seems desirable to include matters of detail in the constitution, special provision should be made for their amendment by a two thirds vote of the Legislature or of two succeeding Legislatures without submission to the people. The distrust of the Legislature need be no excuse for including in the constitution matters more properly subjects for legislative regulation, as an efficient check on the Legislature may be had in the initiative and referendum. Though the compulsory referendum on all amendments to the constitution is most objectionable, since it burdens our elections with votes on questions in which the people have no interest, an optional referendum on all legislative enactments is most beneficial, as it is only demanded when the act of the Legislature apparently violates the will of the people. Unless there is a very strong sentiment against a measure the immense task of securing a petition for the referendum will not be undertaken. Though the optional referendum is seldom demanded, the possibility of its exercise is a constant restraining force on the Legislature. Constitutional amendments. In 1899 the Pennsylvania Legislature passed two resolutions proposing amendments to the state constitution. The state constitution provides [Const. art.3 $26] that every order, resolution or vote to which the con 'Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 19:145. Lawmaking and elections currence of both Houses may be necessary, except on the question of adjournment, shall be presented to the governor, and, before it shall take effect, be approved by him, or being disapproved, shall be repassed by two thirds of both Houses according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill. As in other states also the provision relative to constitutional amendments [Const. art.18] provides that proposed amendments, if agreed to by a majority of the members of each House of two successive Legislatures, shall be submitted to the people. Gov. Stone construed the former provision as giving him the right to veto proposed constitutional amendments, but the state Supreme Court [Commonwealth v. Griest, 196 Pa. 396] has decided that no such authority is granted by this provision, as it refers merely to ordinary legis lation and has no reference to the action which the two Houses may take in performing their part of the work of creating amendments. This is the construction that has always been placed on similar provisions in the constitutions of other states. In order to facilitate voting on constitutional amendments Nebraska has provided that the state convention of any political party may declare for or against a constitutional amendment and such declaration shall be considered a portion of the party ticket. A straight vote for the ticket of a party declaring in favor of an amendment will be counted as a vote for the amendment. In Nebraska, as in a number of other states, not simply a majority of those voting on an amendment is required but a majority of all the votes cast at the election. Many voters favoring an amendment neglect to vote on it, so that amendments often fail even though there be little opposition to them. The Nebraska act is designed to obviate this difficulty ['01 ch. 29]. Drafting of bills. In 1893 it was made the duty of the New York Statutory Revision Commission, "on request of either House of the Legislature or of any committee, member or officer thereof to draft or revise bills, to render opinions as to the constitutionality, consistency or other legal effect of proposed legislation and to report by bill such measures as they deem expedient" ['93 ch. 24 § 2]. This commission was abolished making by an act of 1900, ch. 664, but the work of drafting bills has Lawproved so useful that provision was made for its continuance and elecby the Legislature of 1901. The temporary president of the tions Senate and the speaker of the Assembly are authorized to appoint three persons to draft bills at the request of members and committees ['01 ch. 88]. For the drafting of bills special technical knowledge that can be acquired only by much practice is essential. Great Britain and many of her colonies and provinces have official draftsmen who draft most of the bills at the request of the members. Besides New York, South Carolina and Connecticut are the only states known to have provided any similar authority. In South Carolina at the session. of 1868, immediately after the adoption of a new constitution, an act was passed requiring the attorney general, when requested by either branch of the General Assembly, to attend during their sessions and give his aid and advice in the arrangement and preparation of legislative documents and business [S. C. Statutes at Large, v.14, no.2]. In 1880 the attorney general was authorized to require the assistance during legis lative sessions of the state solicitors in the eight judicial districts of the state [Statutes at Large, v.17, no.249]. They must, under the direction of the attorney general, supervise the engrossing and enrolling of bills passed and assist the attorney general in the drafting of bills and in other work connected with the session. They receive the same per diem as do members of the Legislature. In 1882 Connecticut passed an act providing for the appointment of a clerk of bills by the secretary and president of the Senate and the speaker of the House ['82 ch.137]. The duty of the clerk of bills is prescribed in joint rule 10 of 1883 as follows: It shall be the duty of the clerk of bills to examine all bills for public acts, and resolutions, in respect to their form, before the same are reported favorably by the committee to whom they have been referred, and under direction of such committee to prepare such amendments or substitute bills or resolutions as may be deemed necessary or advisable. In 1895 [ch.297] the appointment of the clerk of bills was vested in the joint standing committees on the judiciary and engrossed bills and his duties in regard to drafting and revising Lawmaking and elections bills were specified in the act. During the past year the act of 1895 has been revised ['01 ch.1]. The method of appointment is unchanged and § 2 and 3 prescribing the duties of the clerk in relation to drafting and revising bills are as follows: 2 It shall be the duty of the clerk of bills to assist members of the General Assembly in drafting bills for public acts and resolutions of a public nature, and to prepare amendments to or substitutes for bills or resolutions at the request of committees. 3 Every bill or resolution favorably acted upon by any committee of the General Assembly shall, before being reported to either branch thereof, be first submitted to the clerk of bills, who shall examine such bill or resolution in respect to its form for the purpose of avoiding repetitions and unconstitutional provisions and insuring accuracy in the text and references, clearness and conciseness in the phraseology, and the consistency of statutes; and shall return to the committee submitting it any bill or resolution that is not in correct form, with such corrections as he may propose in the form of a substitute or as amendments. In New York and South Carolina only such bills are drafted by the official draftsmen as the individual members or committees see fit to refer to them. In Connecticut, on the other hand, every bill favorably acted on by a committee is referred before being reported to the clerk of bills, who revises it as to form and returns it to the committee; though the committee is not obliged to accept his amendments it is very probable that it will do so. Were the drafting and revising of bills in each state in the hands of some single permanent official our session laws would lose their reputation for verbosity, inaccuracy and ambiguity, much litigation would be avoided and the study of comparative legislation would be greatly facilitated. Direct vote for United States senator. Many state Legislatures have at various times adopted memorials and resolutions in favor of the election of United States senators by popular vote and the national House of Representatives has voted four times in favor of the change, but the Senate has refused to take action. In article 5 of the constitution of the United States it is provided that, on application of the Legislatures of two thirds of making tions the states, Congress shall call a convention for proposing amend- Lawments which shall become a part of the constitution when rati- and elecfied by the Legislatures of three fourths of the states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress. In order to compel action a movement was started by Pennsylvania in 1899 ['99 p. 418] to secure an application on the part of two thirds of the Legislatures for the calling of a convention. A joint committee of five members was appointed to confer with the Legislatures of the other states to secure the submission of an amendment to the United States constitution providing for election by direct vote of the president, vice-president and senators. The committee has been continued by the Legislature of 1901 [Pa. '01 p.863], but its duties have been narrowed to that of furthering the direct election of senators. A similar committee was appointed by the Georgia Legislature in 1900 [p.502] and by the Arkansas Legislature of 1901 [p.408]. As a result of this movement 12 states have applied to Congress to call a constitutional convention and two of these states, Oregon ['01 p.477; '01 j.r.5] and Washington ['01 ch.164], have in their application not limited the convention applied for to the consideration of the question of the direct election of senators. Similar resolutions were voted down in the California Senate and the Delaware House. Election of senators by direct vote would certainly relieve the Legislature and in fact the entire state government of a most disturbing element and would tend to strengthen the Legislature for the performance of its true. function. The best governmental and party organization will be furthered by a greater separation of municipal, state and national politics. Legislative and congressional apportionment. 18 states have made a reapportionment of congressional districts, 15 states have reapportioned representation in the upper and lower branches of the Legislature and 7 others representation in either the upper or lower branch. With existing rapid changes in the distribution of population reapportionments must occur frequently in order that representation may be equal, but with existing standards of party honor the new apportionment. is frequently more unequal than the old. Moreover the appor |