The Forest Republican. [volume] (Tionesta, Pa.) 1869-1952, 1899-08-09

UlGlti. ONCA be NhO NhoAe eASeCA
and the force of the arguments on the
other side.
Messrs Olmstead and Hensel filed
the following objections to the petition
on the rule for a mandamus:
l. The governor having disproved
the resolutions proposing said amend
ment5 to the constitution, as set forth
in REALTORS petition, the same are
without validity and are of no binding
effect
Q Neither house of the general as
sembly having passed and adopted said
resolutions, the governors veto not
withstanding, they are invalid and OF
no binding effect on respondent.
8. The governor of the common
wealth has a right according to the
constitution thereof, to pass upon, to
approve or di5approve all joint resolu-
tions adopted by the legislature, ex-
cept such as provide for its adjourn
ment.
4. The legislature having appropriate
ed no money to pay the costs OF the
publication of said resolutions, the re-
spondent having, by careful inquiry,
ascertained. nor states as his belief
that the proper publication of said res
olutions in the newspapers of the
state as contemplated by law would
cost not less than $4,000, and as he
is without any funds to pay the same,
or any part of the same, he has no
right to contract such indebtedness
without previous warrant of law, and
no officer of the state is authorized to
pay said expenses, nor to draw any
warrant for the payment of the same.
s. Even if there were any warrant or
law for incurring the expenses of said
publications, there is at present no
funds nor money in the treasury of the
commonwealth of Pennsylvania, not
otherwise appropriated, out of which
said expenses could be paid"
HALF A MILLION SAVED.
Mr.. Olmstead defended the COVER
nor's right to veto the amendments.
IF, as to ordinary legislation, the
trainers of the constitution deemed it
so important to safeguard it by re-
quiring executive approval or disap-
proval," he said, "how much more rea-
son would there be to guard against
hasty or i'll advised legislation. There
should be no exceptions to theemphatic
rule thus laid down that every vote re-
quiring the concurrence of both houses
shall be presented to the governor for
his approval or disapproval."
"The second constitutional amend
ment, which it is complained the sec
retary of the commonwealth has not
hA sfnrnnncnS
to change this provision so that vot-
ing by ballot will no longer be re-
quired, but the voting shall be done
by a complicated system of machinery,
the voter pushing the button and the
machine doing the rest. AS a member
of the congressional committee on
privileges and elections | acquired
some familiarity with this system of
machine voting in the contested case
of Ryan VS.. Brewster, from the
Rochester district of New York. | learn
ed enough in that contested case, how
ever, as to the expense of these ma
chimes to know that it would cost the
taxpayers of Pennsylvania at least
$500 900 to install that system through
out this commonwealth. Furthermore,
the act of congress with relation to the
election of members of congress eX-
pressly provides that the voting for
them shall be by written or printed
ballot. No amendment to the consti-
tuition of Pennsylvania could change
that provision in the act of congress.
Voting by ballot must, therefore, still
continue in the election of congress-
men. If the machine system should
prevail as to other Offices two systems
of voting would be in force every two
ye. az the same general election. |
hard. think the voters of this COM
monwe1'th are ready to entail upon
themselves This duplicate and eXpen-
sive system # voting. 1t is perhaps as
well that The voters of this common
wealth are s. ID the expense of pub
fishing the posed constitutional
amendment ding upon them so
cumbersome expensive a system
of machine go ing, which amendment
would, when properly understood, most
assuredly be voted down"
Mr.. Eepsel supplemented these re-
marks with a forcible address.
II l'TE WElSS DEClSlON.
jude Weiss, after reviewing the
arguments of both sides, handed down
a carefully prepared opinion, in which
he refused to grant the requested
mandamuses and fully sustained the
action of Governor Stone in his vetoes
of the two resolutions. He held that
"a proposed amendment to the con-
gtitution must be presented to the gov
ernor for his approval or disapproval." !"
He quoted extensively from provisions
of the constitution to sustain this po-
sition.
"No satisfactory reason has been
presented why this view should not
obtain" remarked Judge Weiss.
Nothing can be predicated upon the
fact that the mode of procedure to
amend that instrument is in a separate
article. The method to bring All
amendment into being is by a resolu-
tion, to be agreed to by a majority of
the members elected to each house,
and the same method is prescribed in
section 26, article 8, to repass an order,
resolution or vote disapproved by the
executive. In both instances and cases
the vote must be taken by yeas and
nays and entered on the journals of
the respective. houses. This construc-
tion tends to preserve the unity and
continuity of the constitution, and pro-
vides, in requiring executive action
upon every resolution, that which is
certainly a praiseworthy feature-an
additional safeguard against hasty and
possibly i'll considered legislation and
amendment"
The court also held that the secre-
tary of the commonwealth ought not
to be required to contract for advertis-
ing of nrnnnSed amendments when no