Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1884-12-04
The Electoral Boards.

ont lf.1stasiife OF NfRhi'. ""NrS ""
syeg CHRISTIAN. who was for many years
on the bench Of the supreme Court Of Ap'
peal., 4 one OF them. We mention BIN Tor
the reason stated. There l. in the body a
large number Of men OF real abiliiy--sound
constitutional lawyers. The attention OF
these experts In the law was called 10 every
feasure OF the bill providing for the election
OF electoral boards; and every step taAea
white the bill was pending was taken only
after due deliberation. With full know
ledge ~ what they were doing. and afer
having considered all the constitutional
aoestious involved, these lawyers framed
and passed biIl providing that the Cen
eral Assembly might by JOINT resolution
choose the Electoral Boards; and after the
bin became law. proceeded 10 choose the
Electoral Boards by joint resolution.
nis now claimed by its enemies that
though the law may be constitutional. the
elections held under II were invalid be-
cause The Governor did not approve the
JOINT resolution electing the Electoral
Boards. The following provision Of the
Constitution Is relied upon 10 sust9in this
contention;
"Eytry bill which shall have passed the
senate and House OF Delegates. and every
resolution requiring the assent OF both
branches OF the General Assembly. shall.
before IL becomes tdw, be presented to the
Governor. II be approves. he shall sign
il; but II not. he shall return IL with his
Objections" DC. DC. eli APP
proved by two.thirds OF the members pres
eni II shall become law Notwithstanding
the objections Of the Governor" &C., &c.
This provision by its very terms refers
only TO bills which can become lars. 1t
cannot fairly be construed to refer to
elections made by joint resolution. What
Is there in & joint resolution choosing the
members OF an Electoral Board to which
the Governor could make objection; He
could not object 10 the election it,
self. That question had been decided. He
had vetoed the bill providing for such e,ec-
tioas. aud the bill had become Law not
withsfanding his objections. Can he now
claim the right 10 make his veto effect
i've by Directing TO these elections:
No. Nobody claims that. The conten-
ton Is that the Legislature had
not the power to choose these Boards
without the Governors consent; that
though his veto had been overridden. he
still had the right 10 veto. Veto what
What was there TO vetoy Nothing but the
name OF JoHN SMITH or TON JONES: for. #
the JOINT resolution had been sent TO him,
be could have found In il absolutely no.
thing else TO veto. II disapproye Of the fol-
lowing Names" is all he could have said in
a veto message. Would that have been an
election by The Legislature. as constitu-
tional law requires. or an election by the
Governor. Manifestiy, the latter. In a
word. II is attempted TO convert an eiec-
ton into Joint resolution.
The Constitution OF the United States
contains more stringent provision on the
same point than the one quoted above from
the Virginia Constitution. IL was from
the former provision, no doubt, that the
latter WAS formulated. But mark the dif-
erence. The Constitution Of the United
States provides that before any such Joint
resolution "shoH take effect" II must he
approved by the President. When trans
ferred TO our state Constitution II was
made 10 read as above quoted-"bJore II
becomes ialr." II the language OF the
Virginia Constitution were the same n
that 81 The Federal Constitution, there
would be some force in the claim set
up ~ the Republicans. IL might be
plausibly contended that as Joint resolu-
ton "coutd not take @eci" unless ap-
proved by the Governor the joint resolu-
ton choosing the electoral boards "could
not take effect without the Governors
consent: but a. our Constitution merely
provides thai only such joint resolutions
n could become "id,cS" II approved by
the Governor must receive his approval be-
fore they can become such, il i manifest
that The case under discussion is by the
very terms employed in the state Constitu-
tion taken out OF the category Of those with
which the Governor has to do.
The two houses OF Congress have Joint
rules which require the assent OF both those
houses. These rules have the force Of law
a. between the two houses. The President
oil the United States Is never asked TO aI'-
prove these Joint rules. lie does not even
approve the joint resolutions under which
the vote for President OF the United state,
is counted in the presence OF the two
houses. And yet the language Of the Fed
ersl Constitution l. as follows:
"Erers order. resolution, or cote, to
which the concurrence Of the Senate and
House OF Representatives NAV be necessary
Except on a question OF adjournmcnt).
shali be presented 10 the President Of the
United stptes, and before the same shall
take er,c; shall be approved by him.
xe.. &c.
Has Congress iniseons,rued the Federal
Constitution Tor a hundred years. Is the
manner Of counting the votes for Presiden,
of the United States matter In which thu
incumbent President Of the United state,
can interfere. The Constitution says hs
has right 10 veto "eresy order, resolu
fics, or rote." to which the concurrence Of
both houses Is necessary. The concur
renee Of both houses Is necessary TO every
order. resolution, or vote, providing how
The yotes for President shall be counted
and yet the President Of the United state,
l. never asked 10 approve such orders,
resolutions, or votes. CeSsoate raiioae,
cessat ipSa 81 tex. both In the Virginia ease
and In the Washington ease.
Root Out the lniQuity.
a., .sa ..;.I that the IIouSe al Pom