Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-02-23
UNION AND AMERICAN.
GOV. BROWNS VETO OF THE LO-
CAL OPTION BILL, March p, Is58.

Is - OE GEVN ~ LIZ -AhLGGa 400
Gentlemen Of the General AssembIy 2:
Senate bill No. 250, entitled "An act to
provide against the evils resulting from the
sale o. intoxicating liquors in the State Of
Tennessee" has received the careful and
anxious consideration its Importance de-
mands. The vast social interests involved,
and the evils intended to be corrected by
its provisions, render my duty in returning
Il e bill without my signature dOubiy deli
cate. But official duty to support the Con-
slitution, under my convictions Of its pro
visions, can choose no other alternative
whatever may be the consequences to my
self or others. All the authorities pre-
scented for my consideration, as well as all
Others time would allow me TO consult,
have been patiently examined with the
sole OBJECT OF measuring this bill by the
provisions Of the organic law, and, after
all, 1 am led TO the irresistible conclusion
that neither in the mode of its passage By
the Ger eral Assembly, nor in that feature
prohibiting the privilege Of tipping, unless
Gy a vote OF the people Of The districts, IS il
consistent with the Constitution.
!. 1t is a Senate bill, and upon transmits
sion TO the House was adopted in lieu Of
House bill No. 3c4, entitled, "An act to
amend the tipping laws Of the State
which had already passed tao readings. IL
then passed one reading, and one Only, was
signed bv the Speakers Of both houses and
submitted to me for my action. The FIRST
question presented is, "Did this Senate
biIl No. 24O pass the two houses of the
General Assembly in accordance with sec
ton Is, article IL, of tie Constitution?
That provision is as fellows: every bill
shall be read once on three different days
and be passed each time in the house where
it originated before transmission to the
other 10 bill shall become a law until
1t shall have been read and passed on three
different iavs IN each house, and shall have
received or It's final passage, in each house,
the assent Of a majority Of all the members
50 which that house shall be entitled under
this Constitution, and shall have been
signed by the respective Speakers in open
session; the fact Of such signing to be noted
on the Journal
If this provision is merely directory to
jhe General Assembly, perhaps the ques-
ton should rest alone il the discretion Of
that body. If however, 1t IS mandatory,
the manner OF lie passage Of bill may
faint il with uEc0ustilUtiODality, as much
IS if one Of its provisions were Tepugnaut TO
she organic law. Cases have been cited
from the courts Of other States upon this
subject. IN 9Th Ohio Reports, page 10,
the court quotes the provision OF The Con-
siitutiOn OF that State rs follows:
'sAIt. L., Sec. Us. Every bill shall be
fully and distinctly read on three different
DAYS, unless, in case Of urgency, three.
fogrths Of the House in which il shall be
pending stall dispense with tbs rule
This is held 10 be q merely directory
provision: other cases are cited, where the
same language is employed and similarly
construed.
But in opposition TO this, are the cases
in Sd GilmaR's (Indiaua) reports, page +CG,
and McCullOck IS. the State, IIth Indiana,
page 4Z4, where It is held that a similar
provision is mandatory, and that a bill
passed in violation Of il IS unconstitutional.
Again, in constituting the provisions Of the
Constitution Of Illinois, requiring major
ity Of all the votes Of each House TO be
cast, by ayes and noes, on the journals on
zhe final reading OF bill, the Supreme
Court hold that the provision was impera-
tive and could not be dispensed with by
the Legislature. 18th Illinois Reports,
2g7. 25th Illinois, lo5.
In Cooley's exceIleIJ treatise on COHs.i-
tutiOnai Law, page $50, il is said: For not
only Is il essential that the will of the law
maker be expressed, but IT is also essential
that Il be expressed iR dc form Of lar.
Since nothing is law, simply and solely be-
cause the legislators viii is thai it shall be,
unless they have expressed their determine
ti0n to tlat effect IN the mode pointed cut
bv the instrument, which invests them with
he power. and l1iGer all The forms, which
that instrument has rendered essential
And in Cooley on Limitations, page 40,
note. it is said: "But the rule respecting
three several readings on different days is
specific and capable OF being precisely com
piled with, and we DO not see how, even
undar the rules applied to statutes, 1t can
be regarded as directory merely, provided
ir las a purpose beyond tie mere regular
and orderly transaction Of business. That
It has such a purpose, that it is designed TO
lgcvent hasty and imprpyident legislation,
and is, therefore, not a mere rule OF order,
but one of protection to the public INFER
ests and 10 tie citizens At large, is very
clear; and independent OF the question
zvh.-h her definite constitutional principles ]
czf3 be dispensed with in any case, on the !
groaad If their being merely directory, we |
Cauu0t see how this can be treated as any 1
thing but mCJ31tgTV.'
Tie marked difference in PLTaseO.ogy |
aro,l,. we'd in our Constitution from that in /
ono AM, other States, is worthy Of notice |
Tg flp latfe,- the language is, "Every bill |
shall be fully AID distinctly read on three |
different lavs." etc, while in the former, |
The language is not only every bill shall |
be read once on three different days, and |
be passed each time in the house where it |
before Transmission 10 the 9th /
er" but. TO place the question beyond |
doubt. and, as if 20 place a mandate upon /
the General Assembly, the section further /
provides. No bill shall become q lac until |
Il shall haze been read and passed 0a three |
FiHycut days iR each house,
Then. I conclude, the bill must be passed |
in accordance with the forms prescribed by /
The Constitution. or it cannot become a /
law. Did i so pass? l. certainly d.duot. |
The bill IN question did not pass but one |
reading ia the E0Us2. 4 bill with the /
same leading Objects for which it was sub |
stituted. in iieu. lad previously passed two !
readings. But * was a House bin, a-.a ,
his IS a Senate UiN. The former Las the /
raptfon: "A bill 10 amend the tippling |
laws # the State" and the latter tie cap /
lion: "An act to provide against tie evils |
-aulifnr from line sale Of intoxicating 1
.iososs in tie State Of Tennessee
While tIov have the same leading. oh |
ects they differ in their details, aud il .
some particulars are essentially different /
bills.
Il has been q question, whether IT IS the |
laiy of the Executive TO criticize the MODE |
Of passing bills by tle Legislative branch |
Of jhe Government. Cooley on ConstJE- /
-i0ual Limitations, page l53, says: at las /
also been held lAa5 in ne approval Of laws |
The Governor IS "a component part OF the /
Legislature, and that unless, etc., and on |
page l55, ''Ihe power Of the Governor IS /
q branch of tie legislative department, is |
almost exclusively confined to the approval |
Of bills
The same view CT the question is taken /
by other Writers on jhe subject. The EX- |
ecutiye being la that sense a part Of the |
legislative department, is as much bound