The Sunday tatler and Jersey City express. (Jersey City, N.J.) 1883-1886, 1885-03-29
rs THE BILL a LAW ?
The Parliamentary Jungle Through
Which the Assembly Ora gged a Veto.

The Parliamentary Jungle Through
Which the Assembly Dragged "a Veto.
TRENTON, March 28.-The Assembly got
into as peculiar and knotty parliamentary
Gnarl the other day, as it is possible for
deliberative body to get into. The question
under discussion was whether the Joint
Caucuss Fish Warden bill-one of the
political bills aimed at the Executive
patronage-should pass over the veto of the
Governor, aud the parliamentary snarl into
which it wound the House arose from diff
ference of view as to the number of votes
required to pass bill, and as to whether
they had been regularly cast. Under the
Constitution, the @ General Assembly shall
be composed of members APP
portioned among the counties as nearly as
may be according to the number of their
inhabitants" with a proviso that the
''whole number of members shall never
exceed sixty" The number of members
reaches the limit fixed by the Constitution.
The Constitution further provides that ''no
bill or joint resolution shall pass unless
there be a majority of all the members of
each body personally present and agreeing
thereto" The passage of bill over veto
requires, under the Constitution, 81 a
majority of the whole number of the two
houses" Under these provisions, there can
not be two opinions as to the number of
votes required to pass a bill originally, or
over veto, when all the members are in
active service. Thirty-one votes are needed.
and no lees than 81 will answer Three
weeks or so ago, Assemblyman Carson re-
signed his seat to becom5 Postmaster at
New Brunswick A week ago Assembly
man Chapman resigned his seat too, in
order to become State Superintendent Of
Schools. These designations ltft two
vacancies on the floor, and reduced
the number of members to So. Thus
the matter stood, as to membership,
when the Fish Wardens bill was put
on its passage over the veto. Every
body assumed, at the start, that notwith-
standing the vacancies 81 votes were re-
quired to pass it. The roll-call showed 80
votes for it, But it was objected that
Jenkins and Wills, both Of Morris, who had
voted against the veto, had been without
the bar of the House when the roll-call be-
gan. Rule 10, of the Assembly, declares
that ''no member shall vote on any ques-
ton = in any case when he was not
within the bar of the House when the ques-
ton was put" The Speaker declared that
he could not deny member the privilege
of voting that member had right to
insist upon his privilege, and that the rule
was violation of the State Constitution
This phenomenal decision was made in
spite of the fact that the House has the
right oven to expel a member, which would
pretty effectually choke him off from cast
| ing vote. If these two gentlemen had
| been ruled out, there would have been but
| 80 votes left for the bill, and the veto
would apparently have been sustained
| Then the discussion drifted into the con-
| sideration of the number of votes required
| to pass the bill. On the Republican side.
it was contended that as the two resigna-
| tions had reduced the actual membership
of the House from go to So, the orthodox
| 81 votes were no longer required to put a
bill through. but that 30--a majority of tb 9
| whole number of 58-were sufficient. The
! question had been raised earlier in the day.
| by the friends of the Constitutional Con-
vention bill who were able to muster but
thirty votes for it, and Speaker Armstrong
claimed that at the noon recess he had
secu edtheopinion OF Chief Justice Bea. ley.
Attorney General Stockton and others, that
the designations of Carson and Chapman
made 80 an effective majority. Backed by
these opinions, he said that 80 votes were
sufficient to defeat the veto, but to make
assurance doHbly sure sustained also the
right of Wills and Jenkins to have their
votes recorded-which disposed of the
other question by showing more than the
| sterotyped 81 kfor the act. The bill was
| declared therefore to have been passed
Notwithstanding the veto; but after the
| declaration had been made somebody
moved reconsideration of the vote bv
which the bill had been passed Jenkins
| and Wills were then both in their seats.
and the purpose was to have 80 regularly
cast votes in its favor and cure whatever
irreguiality there may have been about the
| first votes. The movement was phenom-
email in parliamentary light. The pas
sage of a bill oyer veto is itselfa reconsid-
or .tion-so declared by the State constitu,
ton, which says that on the receipt of a
veto the House shall stproceed to recon
slider" the bill, and onesreconsideration ex-
hausts the privilege of reconsideration. A
| reconsideration of reconsideration is an
| unheard of parliamentary proceeding, and
on Thursday for the first time in the his
tory of the State was motion entertained
to reconsider vote by which a
veto had been sustained or bill passed
Notwithstanding the veto. But Speaker
Armstrong, moved by pure partisanship,
entertained the motion, and actually al
lowed the House to pass the bill second
time. The bill is not a matter of very
very large moment, but the whole history
of its alleged passage over the veto shows
to what length these little partisans will
| go, and with what perfect defiance they
will violate law and precedent. to scoop in
paltry little Office. Ours.