Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1856-01-24

1t may also be argued that, admitting the
Constitution requires the objections 70 be
entered at large on the Journals Of the House,
in which the bill originated, it does not re-
quireit TO be done in the other. The first
answer 10 This argument is the language Of
the Constitution itself; "it (the billy shall be
sent, together with the elections, 10 the 9TH
err House, by which it shall be IN like man
ner reconsidered." How is it considered
in the House in which il originated? BY
entering the objections at large upon lis
Journal, and taking the vote by yeas and
nays, and entering the name of members vo-
ting for and against the bill, on the Journal
The reason of the proceedings, in both
cases is the same. The public policy
which requires them on one Journal, re-
quires them on both. The next answer TO
this argument is given by Kent. His Ian
guage is: at is not tobe presumed that two
thirds of both Houses of Congress, on recon-
sideration with the reasoning of the Presi-
dent in opposition TO the bill spread at large
upon their Journals, will ever concur in any
unconstitutional measure"-T | ST Kent,
255 The last answers found in the uni,
form practice Of the State Government. In
1925, Governor Bates vetoed an act to pre-
vent dueling. 1t was returned with his OBJ
iectons, TO the Senate, in which It origiDa-
+ ted, was passed, and sent to the other House
The objections are entered at large upon both
Journals r. Journals, 81 Genera Essen.
bly,, 2G2; S. Journal, 2o6.l In 1881, Gov.
Miller vetoed memorial on the northern
and western boundary. His objections
were sent to both Houses and are on tht
Journals of both: II. Journal, 1872, p
25S; S. Journal 1901 In 1899 Governor
Boggs vetoed an act establishing the St
Louis Criminal Court. 1t was passed ovel
his objections IN both Houses, and the OBJ
iections are entered on the Journals Of both
RI. Journal, p. 332, S. Journal $50. j
They are not published at large in th'
House Journal. The reason assignedto ms
by the person having control of their publ
cation, was that it was thought unnecessary
TO publish them twice in the same book
both Journals constituting but one volume
have, however, examined the origina
House Journal, in the Office of The Secretary
Of State, and the objections are. entered a
large upon it. Thus, this argument is an
swered by the language Of the Constitution
by Kent, and by The uniform practice of th'
State Government. I have met with nc
case, in the proceedings of Congress, ii
which two thirds concurred in the passag,
Of bill, over the objections of the Presi
dent, and hence draw no answer TO the ar
gument from that source.
/ have now examined the reason of Thu
clause of the Constitution in question, a
gathered from the debates in the Convention
which originated it; from the comments 0
the ablest jurists Of the country, the FEEDER
alist, Rawle, Story and Kent and from thu
uniform practice of the national and State
Governments; and here / am fully satisfied
that the veto power was intended to answer
two great ends; to prevent hasty, inconsid
crate and fraudulent Legislation, by securing
in such cases; the combined counsels Of TIVE
co ordinate branches of the Government
and to render The representatives response
bic TO their constituents. I am equally wei
satisfied that the solemn forms Of the Con
stilution, an observance Of which alone cal
secure these great ends, and shield the pub
lie from vicious Legislation, have been viola
lated in the passage of the bill submitted tc
my consideration, / have no hesitation
therefore, in declaring that it is, in my
opinion, unconstitutional. .. --.,...
Respectfully, .... ..-....t.
las b. EARDTNHIRE .