Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1902-04-11
Telephone In Office connectswfth all
city and county lines.
Entered at the Postot7ce at Stau'atoa,
Va. class mail matter.
FRIDAY. APRIL IL.
COULD THE GOVERNOR VETO THE
BIIl2


Gov. Montague has vetoed the Con-
gressional redistricting bill, and by so
doing has drawn on him censure from
some quarters, and praise from others.
It is not to praise nor condemn that
we wish to notice the veto, but to dis
cuss the right Of the Governor to veto
a bill of this character. We are salts
fed that the Governor believed he had
the legal right to veto the bill, and
whether we might or might not agree
with his reasoning is neither here nor
there. We are inclined to doubt the
mower of the Governor to veto meas
ure of this character. In the first place
the power of the Legislature to dis
trict the State is not derived from the
State constitution, but the veto power
of the Governor is derived from the
State constitution. The power of the
LEGISLATURE 30 redistrict the State, and
the power of veto by the Governor
coming from different sources, are not
necessarily on the same footing. The
constitution of the United States con-
fers the redistricting power upon the
legislature and in these words:
1.-THE times places and manner OF hold
ing elections of Senators and Representa-
tives shall be prescribed In each State by
the Legislature thereof" Nv, Art. l.
The Legislature of Virginia, is clear
ly the Senate and House of Delegates.
The Legislative, Executive and Judic-
iaI departments are declared to be sep
arate and distinct.
The question therefore at once pre-
sents itself, can the Legislature frame
any bill which the Governor may not
yeto3 Clearly it could not if the bill
grew out of power derived from the
constitution of Virginia, but can the
same be said when the power Is derlv-
ed from the Federal constitution
We think not. In other words we do
not believe that the trainers OF the
FEDERAL constitution intended the
Governor of the States to have any
thing to do with the districting OF the
States for members OF CONGRESS. Some
of the States have held this doctrine
emphaticalIy. In the case OF Brooks
VS.. Fischer, reported in ~ California,
1t was decided that the governor Is
not, in fact, part OF the legislature
and this statement was repeated more
emphatically as follows
Legislature Is not synonymous with
the laWmaking power. and does not in
clude the governor. The legislature is
distinct body, consisting Of the senate and
assembly"
The same view Is taken by the U.
q. House of Representatives in the
case of Baldwin VS.. Towbridge, decid-
ed by the Forty.frst Congress, In
this case the Michigan State consitu-
ton having come in conflict with the
action of the legislature, the election
committee decided, and the report was
sustained by the House, as follows:
Here the power is conferred upon the
legislature. But what is meant by the
legislatureY Does it mean the legislative
power or the State, which includes con-
vention authorized to prescribe fundamen
tai law, or does it mean the legislature ct
nomine, as known in the political history
of the country? The committee have
adopted the latter construction"
The cases are not exactly analogous,
but CONGRESS construed the word Log
islature to men the Senate and House
of Delegates, and not the Flaw max
ingn power, which would under GER
tain circumstances include the Gov
ernor. This decision is one therefore
of great Importance. The question
presented by this veto 1s not merely
academic, it is real live question and
affects the seats of several Virginia
Congressman, If not all. II the Gov
ernor of a State is a part of the Legis- |
lature within the meaning of the word |
as ueed in the Federal constitution it |
would in many instances require two
thirds vote of both houses of the Leg
islature of State to redistrict the
State. 1t is usual to redistrict State
every ten years. The census often
makes the duty imperative. because
State may gain or lose congressman
during the decade. Suppose the Gov
ernor were in sympathy with minor
ity in the Legislature, he might veto
every redistricting bill offered, and
thus either the districts would be
shaped as the minority would dictate,
or the States would not be redistricted
at all. 1t is, therefore, to our minds
doubtful whether Gov. Montague or
any Governor Of any State can inter
fere with bill of this character when
agreed to by both branches of the
Legislature. 1t seems to he conceded
that had the time been sufficient in
which a vote could have been taken
that the bill would have been passed
over mis- veto, but that is not our point
nor do we deal with the question as to
whether he did right or wrong, but
the point we make is that as to this
bill he had no voice, no power OF veto.
l