The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-04-12

that the bill died, and that the subse-
quent action Of the council in attempt
ing to reconsider this vote was without
authority, and a nudity. This presents
the original and novel question which SO
far asI am able to discover. has never
received judicial consideration. Almost
every other phase of legislative duties,
powers and functions, have, at some time
or in some manner been before the
courts of judicial determination. 1t
would sem from an investigation Of the
authorities on parliamentary rules and
practice that the question has been so
well and long settled that 1t only remain
ed for the advanced intelligence of an
Oklahoma legislature to call it in ques-
ton and give grounds for the courts to
furnish one more precedent to guide fu-
ture courts and assemblies.
1.-THE provision Of our organic act quoted
above was copied from the constitution
of the United States, ard was adopted
for us by congress with the settled con-
struction that it had received prior to the
act Of congress Incorporating it into our
organic law. If congress is exercising
its powers when reconsidering vetoed
measure had by a long unbrOken, and con-
tinued line Of practice adopted the con-
struction that the vote upon the question
as to whether a bill should pass notwith-
standing the objections Of the president,
was Of and in itself vote 20 reconsider
and that with the one vote the powers
OF congress were at an end, then when
they adopted this provision TO govern our
legislative assembly, the construction
thus adopted became Incorporated into
the statute and is binding in our legisla-
ture and courts"
Bearing in mind that the constitution Of
the United States and our organic law
each provide that if the executive fails to
approve a bill he shall return it with his
objection to that house in which it origi-
mated, who shall enter the objections at
large on their journal and proceed to re-
consider it, the opinion cites leading par
liamentary authorities in support of the
cOentntien that vote upon the ppassage
of a vetoed bill cannot be reconsidered,
from which the following conclusions are
drawn:
1T must be conceded upon the foregoing
organic provision and parliamentary rules
that vote upon vetoed bill is a vote
10 reconsider, and that when such vote is
taken, whether it be for or against the
passage of the bill over the objections
of the executive, such vote becomes final
and no vote can be taken to reconsider
such vote. This is the settled construe-
ton that congress has given to its own
powers on this subject and this construc-
ton has been acquiesced in for over fifty
years by the executive, legislative and
Ian rtrs
people, the source of sovereignty And
there is reason in such a rule of prac-
tice. There must be an end to legisla-
tive action. If such vote may be re-
considered twice, why not hrice. and if
thrice why not daily? Surely there must
be limit, and our national congress has
by precedent and long established usage
fixed this limit at one vote upon the
question as to whether the bill shah be-
come law Notwithstanding the objections
Of the executive, and held that no action
can be taken to reconsider the vote. The
wise and learned statesmen constituting
the congress Of the United States at an
early period of our national existence.
found it necessary and reasonable and
made it the law of the body. And neither
the demands of bitter partisanship nor the
wisdom and intelligence of modern states
manShlp have attempted to set aside Sucn
rule or challenge its validity as to par
hamentary law. Congress having adopted
this rule p.ior TO the adoption of our
Organic Act and having incorporated into
the Organic Act the same provision as
that contained in the national cOnstitu-
ton relating to the manner of passing
vetoed bills ii must be conceded that con-
gress at the time Of the Organic Act had
IN mind the rule il had adopted in exer-
s11ao
provision, and had in view the settled
construction given to this provision by
both houses of congress. And il must
be presumed that congress in adopting
this constitutional provision for the gov
eminent Of our legislative bodies adopted
il with the settled construction which had
been given it by congress for a dong Sc
rles of years. If this presumption is cor
rect, and l do not see how it can be rea-
sonably questioned, then this rule of con-
giess Is by legislative adoption as much
a part Of our Organic Act as If it were
incorporated into 1t in specific language. !
and is as binding upon the legislative as
sembly when dealing with a bill which
has been returned by the governor with
out his approval as is the requirement
that such bill shall pass both the houses
by two-thirds vote before il can become
q law.
II must follow as necessary conclu-
sion that when the council voted 10 re-
consider Council bill No. and declared
the bill lost for lack of the required two
thirds in the affirmative It's powers in
this pparticular were exhausted. and all
subsequent efforts to infuse new life into
the measure were without authority and
gave it no validity as a law
Ny conclusion is that Council bill No.
= as appears from the journals of the
council was defeated on the vote to pass
H. Notwithstanding the objections OF the
governor. That the bin was never adoot-
ed II the manner required by the Organic
Act. and never became a law
A peremptory writ Is ordered 10 issue
directing the auditor TO issue a warrant
upon the territorial treasury for the sum
Claimed in plaintiffs petition"