The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-08-09
The Petersburg Council.

----------==-----------
The Petersburg Council.
NE have not committed ourselves upon
.rv AZ the points involved in the so-caiied
"Petersbmg middle" except that winch
rniscs question as TO what constitutes "a
majority " under the charter. we WISH 20
say now few words by way OF COM
ment upon the courteous reply Of the Pc
,ersburg appeal to our article OF Sunday
Last. The provision OF the city charter (sec-
ton 8 Of chapter 81 which prescribes what
shall constitute quorum to transact the
business OF the Council reads as follows:
as. A majority of TIE members Of me
Council shall constitute quorum Tor inc
transaction Of business. But on all ordl-
nances or resolutions approprining money
exceeding the sum OF one thousand dollars,
imposing taxes. or authorizing the Dor,
rowing OF money, the yeas and nays shall
be entered on the journal, and maJorty
of the members elected be necessary"
After quoting the above, the Appe@
comments as follows:
"What did the General Assembly mean
when they used the words we have itail-
cizeds According TO the Dispatch, they
meant by the words "a majority OF me
members of the Council a majority OF
f,renfu-f four membcrs-to acit, majority
Of the members elected. IL so, why did
they deliberately change the form OF eX-
preston, and in the same paragraph use
the words majority Of me MEMBERS
elecfed?"
Those questions are easily answered.
The language quoted is conspicuously in
exact and the sentence ineXcusably incom-
plete. To say that ga majority OF the
members elected shall be necessary ON an
ordnance" &C., is OF course nonsense.
But the meaning Of the section is evidently
this That a majority Of the members OF
the Council, say thirteen, shall constitute
quorum for the transaction OF ordinary
business, and il majority OF this MAORI
ty, say seven members, vote afrmativeiy
on any such proposition, the other SIX
voting in the negative, the proposition is
carried. An ordinary ordinance so passed
Is valid. But on all ordinances or resolu-
tons appropfiating money, &C., such a
vote would not suffice. The whole thir-
teen ga majority Of the members elect
cd") would have to vote for such an ordi-
nance or resolution 10 make it valid.
The same restriction is imposed upon
the Virginia Legislature. In the Senate
for example, under the requirements OF the
Constitution, twenty-one Affirmative votes
are necessary to the passage Of any "money
bill,o but eleven affirmative votes can pass
any other sort Of bill provided there be
ten votes in the negative. But in the Sem
ate, as i'm the Council, there must always
be lawful majority.
The drgunentum db incOnuenienti Of the
Appeal is as follows:
"Suppose that whilst Judge Mann's
court was in session on the afternoon OF
the first day of July, 1882, when the Coun-
Gil was sitting in their chamber below, in
the same building, the crowd in attendance
i'm Judge Mann's courtroom had caused
the floor OF this room to fall through, and
Kill ttcelUe OF the members of the Council,
thereby making it impossible to have a
quorum of thirteen from the surviving
members, how could the places OF the
twelve dead members have been filled |!
BY an election by the Council? Ger
tainly not, if thirteen members are
required to constitute quorum. BY
an election by the people? Certainly
not until the third Thursday in May, 1884,
nearly two years hence. BY appointment
by the Governor? No, Us there is an en-
tire absence of authority under which his
Excellency could make such appointment.
BY the Judge Of the Corporation Court
His Honor Judge Mann would look in vain
among the statutes for such authority. BY
any other authority OF the city or Com
monwealth? BY none Of which we have
any knowledge except only the General
Assembly, which cannot convene, unless
in extra session, before December, 1888.
All that we need do to answer that argu-
ment is to suppose that thirteen members
Of the Council had been killed. What
then!
The appeal further says:
"But the Dispatch claims that Itadopted
the language Of the ordinance when it said
that thirteen members were required to
constitute quorum, and that this ordi-
nance must be repealed before the new
Council can treat it as null and void under
the charter. For the information OF the
Dispatch, we will state that the Council
which met July 1, 1882, did repeal the or
dinance to which il refers, and passed
another in the exact words OF the charter.
Having repealed this ordinance-which
was the ordinance prescribing the rules
for the government of the Council-the new
Council placed their own construction
upon section Of chapter Iii of the char
ter, and proceeded to elect Mr.. Hargrave
i'm place OF Mr.. Couch. VIII the Dispatch
deny the Council the right to adopt rules
for Its own regulation and government"
II it is true that the Council ta,of,tHy re.
pealed the ordinance making thirteen a
majority before it proceeded to elect Mr.
HARGRAvE, then our point is overruled
But we claim that that ordinance was moi
lawfully repealed. We quite from the City
Ordinances:
Chapter H., section s. "No PROPOSE
ton to alter or repeal any ordi
nance shall be acted on at the
same meeting at tohich II toos made"
So the Council violated second ordi
nance when it pretended to repeal the ordi
nance to which the appeal refers.
The Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle has reason
to believe that "the people OF the Mssis