The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1892-09-19
Continued from ed Page.)

that insufficient reasons for such ac-
ton shall not prevail, that the deci-
sive vote on these questions shall be
by not majority or two-thirds of
the members present, but of the
whole body, and if the absence of
members from the House when the
vote is taken is not to lessen the
number necessary to decisive vote,
we cannot see why vacancy by
resignation should have that effect.
The reasons for such action should
be cogent enough to convince a
majority of the whole constitutional
number of members and there should
be no temptation offered either to
members, rendered timid in times of
public excitement and disposed to
evade their duty by resignation, or
to others who would seek to induce
them to resign or even to put them
out of the way, and thus reduce the
number essential to valid vote.
We consider that this safeguard
of the Constitution should be pre-
served in it's entirety. The proceed
ents furnished us are in favor of this
position. The cases in the Supreme
Court of the State of California
San Francisco VS.. Hazen, 5 Cal. It's,
| Nnrr,,1yn,, U,.n, Tol
594, Grogan VS.. San Francisco 1S
Cal. $780, and Satterlee VS.. San Fran
cisco % Cal. 315-all take the view
that the expression in the charter of
the City of San Francisco that no
ordinance should be passed Sunless
| By a majority of oil the members elected
to such Board" of Aldermen, means a
majority of the uotes Of the entire num-
Der which the charter prouided should
be elected. In San Francisco VS.. Ha-
zen above cited the Court said, eff
the word elected is to be taken as
applying to members actually in of
fee, it follows that by resignation or
otherwise the Board may be reduced
to one member and he would be as
competent to act as a full Board"
The reasoning of the Court in Os-
burn VS.. Staley 5 w. Va. S5, ID Am
Rep. $40, sustains the view of the
California Court. Here the Consti-
tuition of West Virginia provided
that "no bill shall be passed by
either branch of the Legislature
without an affirmative vote of a
majority of the members elected there
to. The Senate, when full, con
sisted of twenty two mem
bers-one seat was vacant by res,
ignation and the bill received
only eleven votes. The Court say
"The true theory of representative
government is that a majority of the
representatives of all the people to
be bound by any law should assent
to it and it cannot be doubted but
that the people, when they put this
provision in the Constitution, in
tended to secure themselves agains
the passage of any law to which (;
. majority of all the people should no
consent. The representatives of thu
, people should be governed by thu
7 spirit of the Constitution and il
;. doubtful cases should decline tn
!. exercise of power. For these reasons
$ with all respect, it was the duty o
4 the Senate to have declared the bill
a not passed" But the Court, deem
| ing it not clear beyond a REASONABLE
9 doubt that the words members elect
J. ed" referred only to persons elected
at the last preceding elections, al
= though they may have ceased to b
members at the time the vote wa
a taken, declined to hold the law III
constitutional.
t Southworth V. Palmyra & Jackso
r. R. Co. 2 Mich. 297, holds that tn
word blouse" in the Constitution
= of Michigan means the member
= present doing business, there bein
= a quorum, and not a majority of a
: the members elected; and an act {
- incorporation passed by two-third
of all the members present, thel
being quorum, is constitutions
u Here the Constitution required til
Il assent of "tvo-thirds of each House
- This case does not aid us, as it woul
Il if our Constitution read in Attic
- Al, a "mWority Of The Legislature"
70 "House."
In State " McBryde, 4 Mo. 30
y the facts were similar to those
- the Michigan case. A vote of "tw
~ thirds of each house" was require
- and the Court held that two thir,
ny of quorum, that is two-thirds of
J r Ill II. 4 :.