The opinion
Hill, J.
(concurring in Judge Donworth’s dissent)—While I disagree with the majority, and concur in the result of Judge Donworth’s dissenting opinion and agree with much if not all that is said therein, I desire to make it clear that I do not see any substantial breach in the bulwark of constitutional government in the majority opinion. We are simply confronted with an obsolete legislative provision which should never have been placed in our state constitution and which makes impossible the adoption of a “home rule” charter by many of our cities. The fundamental principles on which our government rests are not imperiled. The constitutional provision with which we are here concerned is no more sacrosanct than any other piece of pro *760 cedural legislation; its inclusion in our constitution merely makes it more difficult to get rid of. As a statute, it would govern until repealed; as a constitutional provision, it governs until deleted by amendment.
I agree with Judge Donworth that there has been no compliance with the requirement that a proposed charter
“ . . . shall be published in two daily newspapers published in said city, for at least thirty days prior to the day of submitting the same to the electors for their approval. . . . ” (Italics mine.)
Hamley, C. J., concurs with Hill, J.