Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 11.djvu/356

 340 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

revision of them was possible so long as the constitution of the state of Pennsylvania permitted anyone whose name was omitted from an assessor's list to have his vote sworn in on his own oath and that of another, an amendment to the constitution making possible an effective personal registration law was drafted. This amendment was introduced into the Legislature in 1897 by the counsel of the league, who had been its secretary from 1891 up to the date of his election to that body. The amendment failed of passage in the session of 1897; ^> u ^ ^ was ag^ 11 introduced in the session of 1899, of which the counsel was again a member. This time it passed the House and Senate, receiving the necessary constitutional majority in both chambers.

After its passage, the then governor of the state, William A. Stone, vetoed the amendment. The league at once challenged his right to take this action, maintaining that proposed amendments to the constitution did not have to be submitted to the executive for his approval, but, after receiving the necessary vote in two successive sessions of the Legislature, were to be submitted to the people forthwith. Holding this view, the league took steps to overcome the effect of the governor's veto, and began a suit in the Dauphin County Court to that end. The lower court denied the league's petition for a mandamus, maintaining the right of the governor to take the action that he did. An appeal from this decision was taken to the Supreme Court, and argued at length before a full bench. After mature consideration, the Supreme Court unanimously overruled the Dauphin County Court, sus- taining the league's position, and denying the right of the gov- ernor to veto a proposed amendment to the constitution. 3

The league thereby established the important principle of the right of the people through their representatives in the Legis- lature to propose amendments to their constitution without fear of executive interference.

The fight for the adoption of the amendment was continued by the league. It was re-introduced in 1901, as required by the constitution, and received a constitutional majority in the House


 * See Commonwealth ex rel. Burnham vs. Greist, 196 Pa. State Reports, 396.