Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-04-29

mn learned in the Law and had settled that matter
in his mind Mr.. REYNoLpS aud Mr. CANNON moved
a call OF the House Mr. HALE said it was the most
impoit tant question before this the regular
session. and he invoktd the deliberate attention OF
the members to it. By 6i 20 the ctllwas ordered.
No u excused members were found absent ana IS
members were present The call was suspended.
Mr.. Lone replied to Mr. Reynolds, saying il the
former case was wrong why shou not the House
now If convinced of il, DECLARE by its act that it
wrong previously. & Slickeus was not the
only question He hoped the matter would be con-
sidered as matter of law. He had protested
against the precedent ctet and he still protss cd
and believed the House wrong when it set the pre-
cedent. Mr. IoUNG didn't how the result
would affect past pending legislation He'd vote
as he deemed the law to he, ami hoped all would 10
likewise. Cushings Law and Practice is the lead
ing authority and it holds tina. where concurrence
by a coordinate body is necessary, and that body
amends the bill OF the other house is the final pas
sage and then IL votes necessary. Mr.. HIN.
DRIeK said he had in the regular session held the
doctrine that ON concurrence in amendments
to bill OF the House II votes are neces-
sary. The Senate may amend TO directly
reverse bill can less than majority of the mem.
bers-elect concur and thus do indirectly what they
could not do directly? Mr. BAKER of Yolo, said at
the regular session he had held as had Mr. Hen.
drick, and saw no cause for reversing s decision.
Mr.. PARKS said Mr.. Felton, had asked the Speaker
lMr Del Nale) he had not been called TO the chair
to make the decision he hSd He wanted to say
that he had not He never dodged RESPONSE.
biEty. When he (Nr. Parks) had ruled as he had at
the regular session. he did go at n moments call and
then stated 1t was matter of law, and then said it
was matter in which he in doubt II any
voted then TO sustain the Char of mere respect
for it, he sorry 1t the highest privilege of
the legislator TO put himself right He believed the
matter was one for the Judiciary to settle He be
lieved Al votes necessary, and thought the House
should not pass an appropriation bill without them
He'd vote to sustain the Chair Mr. MAY SAID he'd
vote to sustain the Char. He had done so at the
regular session when the Chair held the other way
and voting in thn C,oi, ha
sistent. Much merfimentl lie was convinced of
his duty now, and did not fear to do it.
At 1890 P. NJ. the House took recess until pr. Il.
Afternoon Session.
The House assembled at P. NJ. Speaker Parks in
the chair. Mr.. MAY continued his remarks He
cited a supposaole case. Suppose bill passes the
Assembly. 1t requires Al recorded votes That is
denied by no one, no ember whosoever. II goes
to the Senate, and the body is cut of it and sent
back all changed. How on concurrence with hat
change can q or 81 votes make that changed bill
law? He became convinced this matter when
Judge Hale fled his protest at the close of the re
lar session. CIR. Del Vale in the char.) MIR
HARRISON said it was natural TO vote to sustain the
Chair in all cases of doubt When at the regular
session he voted to sustain the Chair he was il.
doubt. The ma jority thought likewise and that was
the voice OF the people. When there are no consti
tutiona restrictions iority of the body present
always decides. In this the constitutional
restriction applies neither TO the first second nor
third reading amendment, but only on pass
age. Amendments do L OF change the character of
bill SO to make it new bill, else there would
have to be eading at length and fortyone votes
every time amendment is adopted. and the bill
treated as a new bill bu. no, only the amendment
is read when q bill comes from the other house. The
fair import of the Constitution is and two sessions
have held, that an amendment is lot to be
treated new bill. He did not believe in the
House stulfyng itself until it is clear beyond all
doubt that it had been wrong. The House should
hold that when the Constitution says bill " it
refers to bill bill, and its passage, in the
meaning OF the Constitution, prior to its being
sent 10 the Senate Mr.. FREER had studied the
matter since the regular session. and had examined
the authorities He read from Seldons Reports
from a of like kind to the Constitution OF
New York, where three fths OF the members elected
had, i'll certain cases, to be present the passage
OF BILL and the Court Ids, where the Senate re-
c. dtd from its amendments without roll call, that
the requisite vote being had the passage was all
that required, and that the Constitution did not
require the ayes and nays on concurrence in
amendments. Mr.. IoUNG-Dont the Court say
there that the New York Constitution is only drec-
tory on the subjectf Mr.. FREER-It does Mr.
YoUNG-ln our Constitution II s mandatory. Mr..
FRBER said he had other cases. and read from Illi-
nos reports, in which State majority of all the
members elected must vote for bill to make 1t
law. The Court held that where the amended title
OF the bill was passed by twenty -four votes when
the Constitution requires twenty-sX to pass bill,
IL was sufficient Was the title OF the bill
tial part Of the law Must it be adopted In Hi
nos the Court says it II ist, by the letter ui the
Constitution. He held that in the light OF reason
and the eases read, " passage meant when the bull
passes originally the third reading, and does
refer TO concuri in subsequent amendment
Mr. PLATT said it settled that the title is part
OF the bill No bill can become law that has not
the authority OF forty-one votes in the House and
twenty-one i'll the Sen .te. The Constitution re
quiTes three readings, and then forty for
passage Ii il comes back III changed then no
vote is required, but II 1t Is changed it is part
OF the law, and the Constitution requires forty-ore
votes Tor one part IS much another Mr.. HALE
replied at length, and said ne the Legislative
Committee in the Constitutional Convention,
in which committee this article Of the
Constitution was formuiSted and argued. The dis
cussion was what is the final passage of a bill He
held .hen, now, that final passage is passage
through two houses 1t can't pass both simul-
taneousy. It must pass one first. Until the House
to which it last comes concuIs i'll ali changes made
by the other it is not law. Hence that action is
the final action, and requires the constitutional
number of votes to declare the legislative Will But
the Constitution says no bill shall become law
without concurrence (fnal passage is not there
used) If majority Of all the members
elected TO each House, and that clause was put
there by the Convention TO every possible con-
tineeLcy and to this very question of altera
tion OF bill, after passage by one House. The OBJ
ect Of the Convention to stop the old practice OF
majority OF aquorum passing BILL the result being
for Years that tn u h the House had 80 members u
votes could and Often did pass q bill ard IL votes
did likewise in the Senate and this had grown to he
great evil and the Convention determined to cor
rect it, and require return to the theory of the
government that majority OF the people as repre-
sented by the members sent UP to each House
should voice bill before it should bind ali the peo
pie as a law. Mr.. WHIPPLE agreed with the views
{ Xprossedb by Judge Hale. 1t needed no lawyers to
decide the question. Rules of construction are
never invoked where the meaning plainly be seen
its face oris apparent from elanguage of the law
lie thought Mr. Freer's authorities did not sustain
his views. The Constitutions beneath those cases
have not the binding and mandatory language Of
the California Constitution, which has the word
Z" concurrence in It's sentence on thi- subject and
no other Constitution has it. The Constitutional
Convention added the sentence " that no bill shall
become law, etc, in addition to its mandates
to reading etc. No palmer lang euage could be used
than the Constitution uses. bill has theory and
object, but by amendment may be turned inside
out, and is no longer a bill as originally framed.
Why have constitutional majority after u third
reading of bill, if it can be cut TO pieces
and pass afterward by twenty. one votes
What is the u-e of the constitutional pro
vision, il that is to be the rule? Why, after
treating ii the passage OF 4 bill explicitly, should
the Constitution go on and say in addition no bill
shall become law until majority Of members
elected concur? Mr.. MCCLURE said the question
is simply construction OF Section 10, Article ".
of the Constitution. The New York case cited by
Mr.. Freer is in all forms with the present case.
Then to the bill, the vote must be recorded and
three.fifths was required as quorum He did not
deny there had been an evil relative TO amendments,
parliamentary law makes clear distinction between
a bill and an amendment, and the Constitution only
requires forty-one votes the bill, not on the
amendment There is ! O constitutional inhibition
against majority OF quorum adopting amend
ment, and in the absence of such inhibition in the
"grant of power" the old established rules prevail
and the distinction between bill and amendment.
he Constitution treats only of a bill, not OF an
amendmt mt, and it must be construed to have been
purpos ly omitted. Concurrence is required, but
the modes and methods Of arriving at 1t are
such as laid down in parliamentary practice, except
where expressly abroSated by the Constitution.
Mr. JAcKsoN thought there may be two final &C
tiens-one when the bill passes ard one when the
other house changes the bill and another vote to
pass it is required. Mr.. GRIFFITH said that what
ever is'true OF the whole is true OF any and every
part. So if the Constitution means anything it
means II members must concur as TO every part of
bill before it become law-all the bill, every
line and word of up to the instant of its naliiy.
Mr. Ho II said the final passage either at its third
reading or when it comes lack amended. On its
final passage it must be read at length and t ayes
and noes taken. If, therefore, the final passage is
in concurrence, it must be read again at length
He did not believe that and should not vote to sus
tain the Chair. Mr.. REYNOLDS again spoke. and
contended that the ruling of the Speaker al the
regular session was right and the ruling now wrong
Any other view requires three readings on three
days of all amendments, ETC.. beside a repeating by
each house. Judge HALE asked Mr.. Reynolds il the
House concurred in the Senate amendments, would
not that be final action? Mr. REYNOLDS said yes ON
the amendments, but not en- the bill, and the
Constitution is silent as to amendments The
theory is that the bill presents all the sub
Ject matter amendments must be german to it,