The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-01-26
THE MAJORITY VOTE.
rumber of Members of the Coun-
ell Who Can Make Laws.
PERTINENT PRECEDENT CITED.
!, rakes q Majority of All the Members
Of Either House to Finally
Pass Ordinances.

4 question of interest and possibly inn
.ertance has arisen in the city council as
3 the number required to constitute
majority of either house sufficient to
snslIy pass an ordinance. A few sessions
go bill was placed upon final passage in
ne house of delegates when there were
onlv nine members present, of whom
s.ven voted aye and two no. President
lanes declared the bill lost as it had not
the necessary majority. He based his
lscisiop on section Ii, article 4,
a the charter, which says: "No
till shall become an ordinance unless,
an its final passage in each house,
i least majority of all the members vote
n its favor and the vote be taken by yeas
and nays and the names of those voting
Cor and against the same be entered in the
journal.
Some Of the members whose attention
had not before been especially directed to
the provision, and some were disposed to
consider that MS section constituted n
majority of either house quorum, a ma
iority of quorum could transact any
business Closer examination resulted in
proof that in most other sections a ma
;ority of those present suf1iced to validate
sction, but upon the final passage the
nhrase "a majority of all the members"
seemed so explicit that the house up
held the ruling of the chair.
The matter was subsequently alluded to
an the board of aldermen and President
Hall acquiesced in the Interpretation, but
declared that in case of vacancies exist
ing in the membership he should rule that
majority Of those holding office would
constitute the charter majority.
The question was again raised on Tues
day night when Alderman Wilcox intro
duced resolution declaring the ruling of
President Jones contrary to the intention
Of the charter and illegal. He was sup
ported BY all the board except President
Hall, and the resolution transmitted to
the delegates for their concurrence.
Mr.. Shipley moved to reject it, but
sfter some discussion it was proposed to
refer the question to the corporation
counsel.
Mr. Muldoon pointed out numerous in
stances in the charter where majority of
hall members was required.
Mr.. Shipley argued that the intentions
seemed TO him very clear. 1t was to allow
business to proceed with a quorum
present, but to place barrier to hasty
legislation by requiring full majority of
oil the members of each house to finally
adopt resolution. But for this provision
nine of the house being a quorum and
FIVE a quorum of aldermen, five votes in
one house and three in the other could in
sist upon law being enacted if they
snstched an opportunity.
Mr.. Barnes said there was q question
whether the charter could require ma
jority of all members for final passage,
while majority of quorum could do
any other business.
Mr. Shipley referred to the rules of state
legislatures as contrary to Mr.. Barnes
view.
Mr.. Bagley said there were several men,
bers who would not change their view of
] the organic law whatever Judge Jacobs
might say
Mr.. Muldoon asked if the members could
not read quite as we'll as Judge Jacobs.
When charter says ga majority of all
members any one of them knew what
all meant.
Mr.. Lansing would like TO have an au-
thoritatlve opinion.
Mr.. Willis said Judge Jacobs would
know the intention of the charter commits
sion, as he was a member.
President Jones said it might be as we'll,
Is there was such difference of opinion,
TO refer the matter to Judge Jacobs, al
though he felt confident himself of the po-
tition he had taken.
This was agreed to, and thus the matter
rests. Meantime some of the members
are apprehensive lest bill should have
crept through with less than nine affirma-
i've votes in the house or less than five in
the board of aldermen. 1t is very improb-
able that any ordinance has so passed, al
though resolutions have been. as they
very properly may, the exaction being
limited to ordinances.
II collateral testimony be OF any value
. IN arriving at conclusion, it can be given
very positively. The rules for the guild
ance OF the charter commission during
their sessions were drafted by committee
consisting of Judges Lewis, Strive,
9reene and Rochester, all, of course, mem
pers OF the commission.
kuie ii provided that majority of all
tne members elected to the commission
enould be necessary to constitute quorum
10 90 business, but the language as TO the
majority required for final passage is UNI
mlssakahly explicit:
huie 1.-THE final vote upon agreeing to each
Proposition shall he taken by yeas aud nays and
20 sueh proposition shall be considered as
sgreed TO unless majority OF all the members
sieesec 10 the commission vote therefor.
On more than one occasion proposition
was declared lost by Judge Jacobs, who
was chairman of the commission, because,
although having majority of those pres
eht, It did not have A majority of all the
members elected.