The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1871-09-06
THE BAKERS DOZEN" De-
CISION.
What is Thought Of 1t AbrOad.
From the New York World.
,..,,,,,,-,, fuCtsf trrnN,


A curious decision upon point of con
stituliOnal law has Just been rendered by
the West Virginia Court Of Appeals. The
constitution Of that State provides thai
mo bill shall be passed by either branch
without the affirmative vote Of majority
oi the members elected thereto" \ full
Senate having 80 members and q full
House %, it would appear as il II Sena-
tors and 30 Representatives must, under
this requirement, vote in favor OF any
given bill 10 insure its passage bll thc dc,
Csion Of the court Is that ~ majority 81
the members elected" means u majority
exclusive Of any vacancies there may he.
The case came up on law objected to AS
having only received IL votes IN the sen.
Ate instead of II, rs it was maintained
the constitution required, and the court
held that ! | votes were enough. The I'M
prupriely Of the decision is best seen by q
reference To another part Of the same con.
slituti0n. A quorum is declared To he "a
majority of each branch" and if ma
iOrity here mean, not IL out OF the Consti-
luli6nal number Of 22 Senators and 80
ont Of the 81 Representatives, but ma
jority 0i those actually holding certificates
Ol election, then quorum might
be less than IL in the upper
house and 90 in the lower, with
the result that majority OF these small
numbers could pass bills. The Senate
might have but members and the House
but 10, and under this decision A Senators
could lcgislatc for 22 and Representa-
lives for 81. An absurdity like this was
never meant. 1t has been often objected
that where quorum was q majority Of
all the members, and majority Of that
majority was competent TO pass bill, the
bill could become law by the votes Of
about one member out of iOur-as may
be thus seen: Full house, say, so; major
ity, or quorum, 90; majority of majority,
OF number sufficient to pass bill, IA, or
% per cent of the entire bOdy-And as
the West VirginiaICOnstitutiOn was framed
not SO many years ago, and when this
grievance was well known, there is every
reason TO believe It was meant no law
should pass but with the approval Of a
majority Of all the members allotted to
each house by the fundamental law. The
court itself, in delivering its remarkable
opinion, said
"The true theory Of representative gov
eminent Is that majority of the repre-.
sentaiives Of all the people TO be bound
by any law should assent 10 il; and it
cannot be doubted but that the people
when they put this provision in the con
intended To secure themselves
against the passage of any law To which
u majority Of all the people should not
consent
How when the people arc represented
by 22 Senators and 81 Representatives
the consent OF less than ~ Senators and
30 Representatives Is n consent of the ma.
iority of the people II IS difficult to see;
but, turning tail upon It's own premises as
above laid down, the court SO decides.
Very shortly the people Of West Virginia
are To vote upon the question OF COnven.
ton to frame new constitution, and II
the convention meet 1t might be well to
squclch all such law as this by putting ii
that mo bill shall be pissed by either
branch without the affirmative vote OF
majority Of the full number of members
allotted thereto by this constitution"
Were any argument needed TO sustain the
prOpriety of such provision, not alone in
the constitutional OF West Virginia but in
that Of any other State, II is to bc found
in the fact that the chances Of corrupt,
needless, or improvident legislation are
lessened just in proportion MS you require
the concurrence of many lawmakers in.
stead u few. In n multitude OF counsel.
lOrs there is safcty--and honesty, sense,
and economy as well