The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1892-09-21

Here there are qualifying words: GA
majority of all the elective mem
bers" is a qualification which shows
an evident intention to require
more than majority of
a mere quorum.
State v. Mcbride, 4 Mo. 3OS, is not
in conflict with the foregoing.
In that case two-thirds vote was
required. The Senate consisted of
"a. Two members we're absent, Is
voted for the amendment and z
against it. The Court say: "The
word House as used in the Consti-
tuition may then either be the whole
number elected to that House or
majority of its members. The most
common meaning of the word then
being a number of members sufli-
cient to constitute quorum to do
business, it is our opinion that Is
members of the Senate having voted
for this amendment and only
against it, two being absent, it was
passed by the required number of
votes"
But here the word blouse" was
used without qualification.
We understand the other side do
not contend that majority of
quorum merely would be sufficient.
But unless they go to that extent
they seem to be left without author
ity.
The following cases in California
are directly against the construction
contended for by the other side. The
words as used there, "a majority of
all the members elected" would lend
themselves to the construction
argued for by the other side more
readily than the words of our Con-
stitution, "a majority of all the cleo
tive members"
There is distict idea in the word
elective" of all who might be elect
ed.
In Satterlee V. San Francisco, %
Cal. 3l5, the charter of the city de.
clared that no ordinance should be
passed unless by majority of all
the members elected to such board
The board consisted of eight mem
bers; at the time of this ordinance one
of the members, Hyde, had resigned,
leaving only seven in office, of whom
four voted for the ordinance and
three against it. 1t is contended
that the charter required not less
than five affirmative votes to pass an
ordinance and that as this ordinance
received only four votes in it's favor
it was not therefore legally passed.
This construction of the charter has
been sustained by repeated decisions
of this Court.
This construction has been adopt
ed in the following cases in Califor-
mia:
San Francisco v. Hazen, 5 Cal. 175;
Hero v. San Francisco, 33 Cal. 40;
McCracken V. San Francisco, Is Cal
594; Grogan V. San Francisco, Is
Cal. $50.
The argument relied ON by the
other side in the present case was re-
peated in all of the foregoing cases
viz: that elected members" referred
to and must be limited to those who
were actually in Office without regard
to those who might have resigned
and was over-ruled in all of them.
In San Francisco v. Hazen the
Court say, ''If the word elected is tc
be taken in its present sense as APP
plying to members actually in Office
(only) it follows that by re ,ignation
or otherwise the board may be re.
duced to one member, and he would
be as competent to act as full
board"
These is no difference in meaning
between "a majority of all the mem
bers elected" and "a majority of al
the elective members"
The foregoing cases are cited with
approval by Cooley in his Constitu
tional Limitations p. 1853. "Where by
the Constitution a two-third o.
three-fourth vote is made essentia
to the passage of any particular
class of bliss two-third, or three
fourths of quorum will be under
stood unless the terms employed
clearly indicate that this proportion
of all the members or of all thos,
elected is intended.
"All the members elected" 9Th,
whole representation" and simila
phrases require all the members t,
be taken into account.
The rule adopted in the UniteC
States Senate that two-thirds of
quorum only can pass an act over
veto (Paschall's Annotated Con, p