The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1899-04-11

passed Notwithstanding the governor
objections.
| COULD VOTE BE RECONSIDERED2
| If the motion to reconsider the vote b!
which the bin was lost was within tn,
powers Of the council, then II must b,
conceded that this bill passed the Coun
eli over the veto II is contended bl
counsel for plaintiff that when the votr
was taken 80 he first instance, ana lost
that the bill died, and shat the subse
quent action of the Council in attempt
ing to reconsider this vote was withou
| authority. and a nulity. This presents
the original and novel question which s.,
far as | am able to discover, has neve
received judicial consideration. Almos
every other phase of Legislative duties
powers and functions, have, at some tm'
or in ne manner been before th'
cour -of judicial determination 1
woula seem from an Investigation of tn,
J authorities on parliamentary rules ant
practice that thequestion has been 8,
we'll and lonk settled that IT only remain
ed for the advanced Intelligence of an
! Oklahoma Legislature To call Il in ques
! tion and give grounds for the courts tC
furnish one more PRECEDENT TO guide fu
ture courts and assemblies.
WORDING SAME AS UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.
The provision Of our Organic Act quoted
above was copied from the Constitution
OF the United States, and was adopted
for us by Congress with the settled con
struction that It had received prior TO the
Act of Congress Incorporating il into oui
, Organic law. II Congress is exercising
its powers when reconsidering vetoed
measure had by long unbroken, and con-
tlnued line OF practice adopted tie CON
struction that the vote upon he question
as to whether bin should pass nobwith-
standing the objections OF the President
was Of and in itself vote 10 reconsider
| and that with the one vote thu 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 IL binding IN our Legislature
and courts. The supreme court OF Maine
in Haggett vs.. Harley, 40 Al. SCI, said
"A new statute will not be construed
as intending a reversal OF long establish
ed practices and principles unless such
intent unmistakably appears"
The supreme court of Nebraska states
the rule thus
when statute employs language
which has elsewhere received {. fairly
well settled eonstrpptian, It win be pre-
spmed that such construction was in the
contemplation OF the legislature and ex-
presses the true meaning" +" OSendall VS.
darneau. rs n. W. $50
In the case OF Willis VS.. The Eastern
Trust and Banking Company lGs T. s.
2s5, the supreme court of the United
States, In defining this same rule Of inter-
probation, said;
The known and settled construction
which Statute has received before
its enactment by Congress must he con-
sidered as having been adopted by Con-
gress with the text thus expounded,"
Chief Justice Marshal announces The
same rule in Fucker VS., otley 5 Cranch 81
In Hovey Governor. vs., state eN rel
Carson lle Ind Ss5, the supreme Court OF
Indiana said
when a Constitutional provision has
received a uniform Legislative exposition
which has been acuisced IN by the other
departments, and the people. and such
PROVISION is afterwards incorporated into
a new constitution. It viii be presumed
that Il was adopted with knowledge OF
the constitution it had previously reoeiy-
ed and the Cohrs will adhere TO such
construction"
II being the settled rule OF law that an
adopted stature carries with It the setti-
ed construction IL had received previous
20 Tvs adoption the uestion ariese what
was the settled practice OF Congress uaier
the Constitution OF the United states