, 1889-08-01
yidins that three-fifths of the legislature

yiding that three-fifths of the legislature
may adopt bill over the governors We
TO instead of two-thirds. He was on
posed TO the veto power altogether.
MIR. Weir said the committee thought
that what was good enough for congress
was good enough for this state.
Mr.. Jones favored the amendment for
that very reason. He thought that ex-
perience In congress had shown the wis
dom OF reducing the figures.
Mr.. Convey was opposed to the veto
power altogether. and so was Mr.. Sulli-
van Of Whitman, and both favored the
amendment.
MIR. Grifiitts did not fear the veto
power In the governor and opposed the
Mr.. Prosser thought II the governor
nan not tho veto he need not sign bills.
MI. h. IL. Sullivan said that was true,
and ne was opposed to that also. In
Ohio the governor
NEITHER SIGNED NOR VETOED
any bill, and Ohio was getting along
tolerably well. All this business of sign
ing and vetoing was relic of monarchy,
and he was opposed to the whole thing.
Ihe governor should attend to execut-
ing the laws and the legislature to max
ing them. He never saw a governor
whom he thought had more brains than
a majority Of the legislature.
Mr.. Buchanan would not ignore the
wisdom of our predecessors, and believed
IN the governor both signing and veto
ing bills, and requiring two-thirds
vote 10 overcome veto.
Mr.. Moore opposed the amendment,
favored the veto power and endorsed
b9chanan's statement OF the position.
had worked as nicely as he thought
1t did during the last administration:
Mr.. Moore said no doubt mistakes
had been made, but they had to be
brought before the legislature, and IL
was safer to leave this power in the
hands of wise, experienced man who
might make mistakes than to leave the
haste or heat of its passage.
Mr.. Dyer heartily favored the amend
ment, and alluded to the unbridled use
OF the veto power in some instances,
notably in the case of recent president
who was said to
WRITE vEroEs EVERY MORNING
TO sharpen his appetite. for breakfast.
He knew that Nebraska fourished with
the veto power. 1t was unfair when
parties were evenly balanced to let q few
men control all legislation by compact
with the governor
Mr. Sullivan Of Tacoma, was willing
w make tIllS dIneliutueTt III COuslucrd-
ton Of giving the governor power to veto
poses to do.
Mr. Turner said it had been Just a
hundred years since a political party in
France discarded the wisdom of their
ancestors and formed a government sys-
tom out of their inner consciousness
founded 1t IN the name of liberty and
the will Of the people. The result was a
failure after
RIvBR OF BLOOD
had been shed and cataoomb of
corpses piled up. The will of the ma
jority needs to be opposed sspmetimes.
the gentleman (sullivan) has stated,
but there the veto Is absolute; an act
cannot be passed over 10, while we have
only a modified veto.
Mr., Warner believed the people are
the sole rulers of this country and every
right they have ever obtained. The
president who has been referred to
made so many vetoes because he wished
10 compel congress to pass their bills in
time to give him a chance TO consider
them, else he would not sign them.
Such veto power amounted 70 nothing
for the people. He would gladly
abolish the whole business and have
only one house to legislate direct from
the people.
Mr.. Convey thought Mr.. Turner might
just as well have gone back 1l3 years
and cited the Declaration of Independ-
enee, which was the greatest innovation
in government ever made. Ohio had
not the veto power and stood as high
and was as powerful and well managed
as any other state in the union.
Mr.. Crowley favored the amendment
and proposed not to linger too long in
THE LAP OF THE PAST.
The veto power was a relic of monarchy
and not a success as a rule. A three
tifths vote is entirely sufficient.
MIR. Cosgrove thought the veto power
was pernicious and should vote for as
small figure to overcome 1t in the
legislature as he could get. Let the
legislature take its own responsibilities
and not throw them upon the governor.
now, but only in the hope of getting a
chance to vote to make that simply a
majority. He believed in veto power
that should be nothing more in effect
than advisory. Let him send II back If
he thinks best, but let the legislature,
after having it's attention thus arrested,
re-affirm its decision if it choose.
Mr.. Browne said he intended to make
Just that speech and move that amend.
ment. AS the last speaker had made
the speech nothing was left for him to
do but to move to amend by striking
out ''three- tifths" and inserting "a ma.
jority," which he did.
Mr.. Griffitts veheInently opposed this,
and called upon the convention not to
substantially abolish the veto power by
taking any such stand. The French
the bad taste of dragging i'll Mr.. Cleye.
land the Oregon yetoos the lobbying in
legislatures, the English monarch and
seven or eight other matters
GOT TURN,
not forgetting to present that hoary old
quotation, SIT is a condition and not a
theory that confronts US" which has
been recently handed down from the
earlier times of Confucius.
With all due difference to the able
arguments he had been listening to,
Mr.. Weir had not yet heard anything to
convince him that the veto power ought
to be abolished or cut down, and he de-
nouncvd tinkering with well estab'
lished system.
ments or the Sermon on the Mount were
to be introduced here somebody would
want to amend it.
MIR. Lindsey moved that the COM
mittee rise and report progress. Lost.
Mr.. Sullivan of Whitman recognized.
(Cries of Question" Mr.. Buchanan
called the gentleman to order as having
already spoken.
Mr.. Sullivan said he had already
spoken about 'three.tifths" and not
about "a majority" If, + The Bible S; ,Sns and
ton as rules of action, why not 60 fur.
ther and quote Solomonfs rule about
bringing vlp children with the rod, and