attempts to restrict a convention in such a manner as to interfere with its proper functions, and such cases have not been numerous.12

Sometimes, however, legislatures have incorporated in convention acts provisions that give rise to confusion and delay although it would seem that such objectionable requirements have been due more to over-zealousness in behalf of the general welfare than to any intention of extending their proper authority. In this connection attention may be called to three such questionable provisions. The first of these has to do with the nature and the necessity of a fidelity oath to bind the convention delegates in the performance of their duties; the second deals with limitations as to the length of the convention session, coupled with a refusal of remuneration after a specified time; and the third concerns detailed requirements as to submitting the findings to the people for approval.

The Convention Oath. - The Constitutions of Colorado, Illinois, and Montana contain express provisions to the effect that delegates to a constitutional convention shall take an oath to support both the State and the Federal Constitution. Where such a provision is found in the fundamental law, there can be little doubt of its propriety at least it appears that its propriety has not been disputed. 13 Judge Jameson asserts that of the convention proceedings accessible to him, about one-half indicate that an oath has been administered to the delegates.14 The question, however, does not seem to be so much concerning the propriety of an oath, as the proper oath to be administered.15

In the Iowa convention of 1857 a pointed discussion took 12 Dodd's The Revision and Amendment of State Constitutions, p. 91.

13 Hoar's Constitutional Conventions, p. 189.

14 Jameson's Constitutional Conventions, p. 280.

15 Hoar's Constitutional Conventions, p. 188.

place upon this very question. The convention act approved on January 24, 1855, contained no provision in the matter; and the delegates themselves had difficulty in coming to an agreement. As first presented the resolution pertaining to this question provided that the "members elect, of this Convention, be and they are hereby required, severally, to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and to faithfully discharge their duties as delegates to this Convention." An amendment proposing that the words "and the Constitution of the State of Iowa" be inserted after the words "United States", precipitated a heated but rather academic debate. One member asserted that inasmuch as his intention towards the existing State Constitution was "to alter it, break it down, tear it to pieces, and build it up again", he could see no reason why he should swear to support it. The debate, covering almost two pages of the record, resulted in the adoption of the original resolution.16 Although legislative supremacy was not in this instance at issue, the discussion is indicative of the attitude of the delegates toward such requirements.

Judge Jameson mentions the North Carolina conventions of 1835 and 1875, as well as the Illinois conventions of 1862 and 1869, as important examples relating to this question. The acts under which these conventions assembled definitely prescribed the oath to be taken. In both of the North Carolina conventions the oath was objected to, but was subsequently administered - even though important restrictions were formally placed upon the conventions by the legislature and no delegate was permitted to take his seat until bound by oath. The members of the Illinois convention of 1862, however, refused to take the oath required by the con

10 The Debates of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Iowa, 1857, Vol. I, pp. 8, 9.

The member who made the statement quoted in the text was Mr. J. C. Hall of Des Moines County.

vention act, and the members of the convention of 1869 took it only in a modified form.17

The Virginia convention of 1901-1902 refused by a vote of fifty-six to thirty-eight to take the oath laid down in the existing Constitution, because it not only required the support of both the United States and the State Constitutions, but also bound the "officers of this State" to accept and to recognize "the civil and political equality of all men before the law."'18 The argument that the delegates were not "officers" within the meaning of the Constitution of 1870 formed a convenient ground for evasion, inasmuch as the principal purpose of the convention was to effectively disfranchise the negro.19

The Alabama convention of 1901 was likewise restricted by legislative act both as to functions and to oath. Declaring support of the Constitution of the United States and fidelity to the duties of a delegate, the required oath was taken by the members, but inasmuch as it made no reference to the legislative act, the restrictive provisions therein contained were not fully observed. The controversy led to the positive assertion in the new Constitution that "nothing herein contained shall be construed as restricting the jurisdiction and power of the convention, when duly assembled in pursuance of this section, to establish such ordinances and to do and perform such things as to the convention may

17 Jameson's Constitutional Conventions, pp. 283, 284.

In at least the South Carolina convention of 1835, Judge Jameson indicates that the "Act rested not alone on the authority of the legislature, but on that of the people to whom it had been submitted." This view seems to be the one that finally persuaded the members to take the oath.

18 McKinley's Two New Southern Constitutions in the Political Science Quarterly, Vol. XVIII, pp. 506, 507.

The article referred to gives interesting data concerning the Alabama and Virginia conventions that convened in 1901.

19 Dodd's The Revision and Amendment of State Constitutions, p. 81.

seem necessary or proper for the purpose of altering, revising, or amending the existing Constitution. "'20

The Louisiana act under which the convention of 1913 convened contained elaborate restrictions upon the powers of the convention through an oath which concluded with the words: "I will observe and obey the limitations of authority contained in the act under which this convention is assembled". In this instance, the act was previously submitted to the electorate. Since, however, both the provisions for the election of delegates and the question as to the desirability of a convention were embodied in the same statute and submitted at the same time, it can hardly be said that such an act emanated from the people.21

In convention acts of the last decade, oaths are not usually prescribed - unless required by higher authority than legislative enactment. The Illinois Constitution of 1870 requires delegates to a convention to "take an oath to support the constitution of the United States and the State of Illinois, and to faithfully discharge their duties as members of the convention."22 In Michigan, Missouri, and New York the State Constitutions - otherwise complete as to provisions for convening a convention-fail to mention the oath.23 Of some fifteen States that have passed convention

20 Dodd's The Revision and Amendment of State Constitutions, p. 82; Constitution of Alabama, 1901, Art. VIII, Sec. 286, in Kettleborough's The State Constitutions, p. 51; Journal of the Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention (Alabama), 1901, p. 5; McKinley's Two New Southern Constitutions in the Political Science Quarterly, Vol. XVIII, p. 507.

21 Dodd's The Revision and Amendment of State Constitutions, pp. 75–77; Official Journal of the Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Louisiana, 1913, p. 4.

22 Constitution of Illinois, 1870, Art. XIV, Sec. 1, in Kettleborough's The State Constitutions, p. 406.

23 Constitution of Missouri, 1875, Art. XV, Sec. 3, in Kettleborough's The State Constitutions, p. 813; Constitution of New York, 1894, Art. XIV, Sec. 2, in Kettleborough's The State Constitutions, pp. 1001, 1002; Constitution of Michigan, 1908, Art. XVII, Sec. 4, in Kettleborough's The State Constitutions, p. 708.

acts since 1900, few have required an oath to bind the delegates. It would seem that in the absence of a higher sanction a specified oath has no proper place in the convention.

Length of Convention Session: Compensation of Delegates. In several convention acts of recent date is to be found an attempt to restrict the length of the convention session, supplemented by a further provision that at the end of a certain time remuneration of the delegates shall cease. The act providing for the Alabama convention of 1901 declared that members should draw pay for not to exceed fifty working days. Upon the expiration of this period the task of the convention was hardly half completed. The members, however, decided to remain in session until the work was finished and to draw pay at the rate authorized by the legislature for the first fifty days.24 The convention that met in New York in 1894, finding itself in a similar situation, continued its session, but without compensation.25 In Louisiana the convention act of 1913 stipulated "that no compensation shall be allowed to delegates after fifteen (15) days to which the convention is hereby limited." The convention met on November tenth and obediently adjourned on the twenty-second. In this case it should be noted that the convention act had been submitted to a vote of the people.26 In the case of New Mexico and

In spite of no mention of the oath in the constitutional requirements for a convention, both the New York act of 1915 and the Michigan act of 1907 mention the administering of "the constitutional oath of office" to the delegates. - Michigan convention act (approved June 27, 1907), Sec. 6; New York convention act (approved March 17, 1915), Sec. 2.

24 McKinley's Two New Southern Constitutions in the Political Science Quarterly, Vol. XVIII, pp. 509, 510.

25 Dodd's The Revision and Amendment of State Constitutions, p. 82.

26 Louisiana convention act (approved September 12, 1913), Sec. 6; Election Proclamation, November 7, 1913, in the Official Journal of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Louisiana, 1913, pp. 6–9; Official Journal of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Louisiana, title page.