The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-04-12
IS DECIDED No LAW
Judge Burford Passes on
Council Bill No. g"
IS IN THE SESSION ACTS
But an Explanatory Note VIII
Give All Warning.

,. IL. %
foreshadowed in the Eagle, Judge Burford
of the district court, has decided that
council bill No. o. did not pass over the
governors veto, and that consequently it
it not a law Inasmuch as the bill is IN
type. Secretary Jenkins states that it will
be permitted to remain in the session
laws. but with an explanatory note set
ting forth the decision Of the district
court. Auditor Hopkins has not yet de-
cided whether or not he will appeal the
case to the supreme court
Discussing the first question presented:
Is there any appropriation available 1or
the payment Of the expenses Of the DEAL
dumb and blind? Judge Burford IS his
opinion says:
THE last legislative assembly en-
acted a law which provides for speclhc
levy for the years 1899 and 1900 to raise
funds for the payment Of the expense OF
the care and education Of the blind, dear
and dumb But the funds from the levy
for 1899 under the provisions of this law
will not be available before the last quar-
ter of this year, and in the meantime, II
council bin No. 2 is the law Of the terri
tory. the auditor is absolutely prohibited
from drawing any warrants for these eX-
penses until taxes are levied ana coHecteo
this year. Ny conclusion is, that the audi
tor has no means at this time, before the
assessments for this year are returned Oh
determining the amount that viii be real
lied from the authorized levy, and that
any warrant he might draw, would, IN
anticipation of such fund, endanger him
with violation Of that provision OF coun-
Gil bin, No. ,, which prohibits the drawing
Of any warrant in excess Of the approprla-
ton for such purposes. Hence, II coun-
ell bill No . is the law, the plaintiff must
wait for his warrant until the taxes for
this year are levied and collected
Having disposed Of the appropriation
question, the opinion takes up the history
of the alleged passage Of the bill over the
governors veto, first citing tht provision
of the organic act prescribing the manner
in which a bill is passed over the gov
errors veto as follows;
Every bill which shall have passed
the council and the house of representa-
tives of said territory shall, before it be-
comes a law be presented to the governor
Of the territory. If he approves, he shall
sign it, but If not he shall return it with
his objections to the house in which 1t
originated. who shall enter the objections
at large upon their pournel and proceed
to reconsider it. If, after such recon-
mendations, two-thirds Of that house shall
agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, to-
- n+f /, cr
house, by which it shall likewise be re-
considered and if approved by two-thirds
Of that house, it shall become law. But
in all such cases the vote of both houses
shall be determined by yeas and nays, to
be entered on the Journal of each house
respectively
A number of authorities are cited to
sustain the court in examining the legis-
lative journals TO ascertain the history of
the bill after its veto by the governor,
and the opinion goes on to say:
THE journals Of the council, the house
in which the bill originated, and to which
it was returned TO the governor, discloses
that following action was had on the
fftieth day of the assembly:
THAT the question is, shall the bill
pass notwithstanding the governors OBJ
jections. Roll call. Ayes E, nays 5, alb
sent l. present not voting l. Those voting
in the affirmative were Clark, Garrison.
Havens. Magnoss, Thacker Mr. Presi-
dent. Those voting in the negative were
Bellamy. BiddIson, Candy Huston. Hut
to. Absent Winkler. Present and not
voting, Brett. The bill was declared lost.
Councillor Biddison moved the reconsider
alton of the vote by which c. B. No.
failed Of passage Notwithstanding the gov
ernor's objections. Roll call Ayes. g
Nays, 4. Those voting in the affirmative
We're Biddison. Brett Clarke Garrison,
Ravens. Afagness. Thacker, Winkler. Mr..
President. Those voting in the negative
were Bellamy, Candy, Huston. Hutto.
Two thirds Of the councillors having voted
in the affirmative, c. b. No was de-
Clared passed Notwithstanding the gov
ernors objections. Nessaged to house.
Received by the council and delivered to
secretary Of the territory
The council consists of thirteen mem
bers, the Journals show that twelve mem
bers were present when the first vote was
taken, and that only six voted 10 pass the
biu over the governors objections. and
the bill was declared lost. a motion was
then made TO reconsider this vote, and all
the members being present nine voted in
the affirmative and the bin was declared
passed Notwithstanding the governors OBJ
Jections.
If the motion 10 reconsider the vote by
which the bill was lost was within the
powers Of the council. then it must be
Gil over the veto. 4, is conten5ed by
counsel for plaintiff that when the vote
was taken in the first Instance. and lost.