Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1902-04-18
COY. MONYAGUE'S VETO.
CONGREssMEN ARE UNSETTLED.
1t Has Caused Serious CompIi-
cations in Virginia.
{ WdsIinotoR Post

vetoing the measure passed by the
legislature of Virginia Reproducing
the Congressional districts of that
State has resulted in a serious CON-
plication. Not only are the members
of Congress uncertain as to the
boundaries of their districts in the
next election, but serious doub t
has also been cast upon the titles to
the seats to which they may be
elected. 1t is not at all impossible
that when the next House of Repre-
sentatiyes assemblies the Virginia
congressman may be asked to stand
aside until their election has been
made the subject of investigation.
The situation in Virginia can be
briefly explained. The legislature
passed an act changing the boun-
daries of eight out Of the ten Con-
gressional districts in the State. It's
right to pass new apportionment
act, even though the number of Con-
gressmen remained unchanged, is
unquestioned. The same action has
been taken innumerable times in
various States. When the bill had
received the sanction of both
branches of the legislature, Gov.
Montague vetoed it. Whether or
not it be true, as is alleged, that he
was actuated by political purposes,
the fact is that his action has seri-
ously complicated the situation.
The question is raised whether,
under the Constitution of the United
States, the action of the legislature
was not sufficient without the COVER
nor's sanction. IF it was, the veto
is Ineffective and the districts must
nominate and vote according to the
new apportionment.
The legislature having adjourned,
steps are being taken in Virginia to
bring the dispute to the attention of
the courts, in the hope that the puz-
zled Congressman may know whether
their districts remain unchanged or
whether the action of the legislature
is to be respected. Already in Wash
ington there has been a close exami-
nation of the Federal and State con-
stitutions and of decisions which
might afford some light. The exact
question now raised, it is asserted,
has never been adjudicated.
The Federal Constitution pre-
scrlbes that the time, place, and
manner of holding elections for Sen.
ators and Representatives shall be
prescribed in each State "by tie
legislature thereof" The question,
then, is whether the word 'legisla.
ture" means the two branches of the
general assembly or these branches
acting in conjunction with the gov
ernor. In the case of Brooks VS..
Fischer, reported in 70 California, it
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 law-making power, and does
not include the governor. The leg
lslature is a distinct body, consisting
OF the senate and assembly.
The same view is taken by the
House of Representatives in the case
of Baldwin VS.. Trowhridge, decided
by the Forty-tirst Congress.
The Virginia constitution distinct
ly states that "the legislative, execu.
tive, and judicial powers shall be
separate aud distinct" and it also
defines the legislature to be "vested
in a general assembly, which shall
consist of senate and house of dele
gates" The view taken by those
who regard the governors veto as in
is that the action of these
two houses fulfilled the requirement
IF the Federal Constitution that the
legislature shall prescribe the details
IF elections.
There is, however, another section
II the Virginia constitution which
provides that every bill and resolu-
.ion (which shall have passed both
branches of the general assembly
hall, before it becomes a law. be
presented to the governor; if he APP
proves, he shall sign it; but if not,
lie shall return it, with his objections,
o the house in which it shall have
originated" This is quoted by the
of Gov. Montague as sus.
aiming the legality of his veto, al
hough, on the other hand, it is held
" the opponents of the veto that the
wo decisions already quoted clearly
how that this provision does not
pply in this case.
WY IT WAS NOT PASSED OVER VETO.
AS the new apportionment bill
'assed both houses by an overwhelm-
ng majority, four-fifths of the men, |
'ers of each voting for it, there is no
uestion that it would have received |
more than two. thirds vote over the
overnor's veto if the latter had not
cen submitted when nearly all the |
nembers had departed and when it |
7as impossible to reassemble them
efore the time of adjournment was
cached.
There was only one member of the
'irginia delegation at the Capitol
Tho would discuss freely Governor
lontague's veto of the reapportion-
lent bill, and that was Representa-
i've Jones of the First District.
81 am extremely gratified at the
Governors action, and | admire his
oming straight out with a veto
lstead of allowing the bill to die on
is hands," said Mr.. Jones.
Mr.. Swanson said: 81 have nothing
say" When pressed for a state.
tent, the agile member from the
fifth escaped into the floor of the
louse, calling out over his shoulder
18th laugh, "Not word from me:
We nothing to say"
Hay and Rhea also declined to ex-
ress any opinion on it. saying the
III did not affect their districts any