The daily morning journal and courier., 1905-05-30
LEGISLATIVE DOINGS.
fl CONSIDERATION OF PARDON
 BILL TETO.


 the reassembling of that body Wsdnes- | day, May Sl. The course of action in the general assembly concerning ye- toed bills has not been wholly uniform. The constitution provides that when bill is returned to the house in which it originated, with the governors objec- tions, the house shall proceed to re- consider the bill" the custom has been to act on the bill immediately after the reception of the veto, the question be- l ing: Shall the bill pass, notwith- standing the objections of the gover- l nor?" But immediate action has not been taken in number of cases, -That has depended upon circumstances, such as the attendance of members at the time the vsto is submitted and in- l terests of that nature. The attendance in the ssnate Thursday was small, and
 the reconsideration of the bill could not i have been undertaken with that full l expression of views by the senate
 which the measure should receive. i But the day was the governors limit
 for submitting the vsto. It has been definitely settled by the two houses in 1 the past that a vetoed bill cannot be amended, removing the features objec- , ted to by the governor and passed, as l that would change the main question
 on the veto. In 1883 vetoed bill was
 amended in the senate, meeting the objections of the gover, but the house
 refused to receive the bill as amended
 with the veto. Upon it's return to the
 senate that body reconsidered its &C.,
 tion, rejected the amendment and then
 voted on the passage of the bill, "the Igovernor's objections notwithstanding"
 In 1889 Lieutenant-Governor Samuel E.
 Merwin, of New Haven, ruled on ve-
 toed bill that the only question properly
 before the senate was: Shall the bill
 pass, the objections of the governor
 notwithstanding" It is clearly objec-
 tioeabln4 that vetoed bill should be
 amended or changed. while the action
 of the house is on the governors veto. There has bsen no uniformity in the disposal of vetoed bills after the vote
 in the house in which the measure originated has been takn. If the ob- jections of the governor have been sus- l tained by the house originating the bill, l the measure with the veto has been l transmitted to tn sccrtary's office im-
 mediately, In 1883 the house ordered
 such action, The Hon. Lynde Harri- son, of New Haven, who is one of the
 ablest parliamentarians in Connecticut
 established a ruling in 1877 that has
 besn an important precedent. It was 1 inregard to the reconsideration of a bill
 that had been returned by the governor
 without approval. The objections were
 sustained in the house which took ini- tial action concerning the measures.
 It was then allowed to go to the sen
 ate, where 1t was passed oyer the gov ernor's veto. Being returned to the
 house on disagreeing action, Speaker Harrison ruled that the house having
 once reconsidered it as required by the
 constitution and rejected it, no further
 action could be taken. This was
 clean cut ruling by Judge Harrison and
 has become a fixed part of Connecticut
 parliamentary practice. At the time of
 the ruling, however, the house declined
 to sustain the judges views. The Hon.
 John P. Perry in 1889 took the same
 ground practically, but admitted of g.
 reconsideration for the second time for 1 the purpose of correcting a mistake He stated specifically that the object
 of the ruling was for the correction of
 an error, and the ruling itself was not l to be taken as a precedent. In 1889 6
 vetoed resolution was passed in the
 senate, where it originated, the gover-
 nor's veto not being sustained. In the
 house it failed of passage and that | boI bet tl,
 measure to the secretary's office. It
 should have gone back to the senate as
 would be the case with bill that had
 not been presented to the governor l EX-Lieut. Governor George G. Sum
 ner, who has a deep insight concerning parliamentary practice, established a
 similar ruling in the Hartford Court of | Common Council while he was mayor
 of the city. In the interest of working
 men in the city of whose interests he
 was always the champion he vetoed
 resolution reducing the compensation
 of labor. In one branch of the Com
 mon Council the veto was sustained.
 Rejected in the cognate branch, it was returned to the Board of Aldermen,
 when Mayor Sumner was presiding, on disagreeing action. Mayor Sumner
 ruled promptly that that course was
 admissible. The end was that the
 workngmen of the city were safe guarded in thair clamse. The dealing
 with Governor Roberts veto Wednes-
 day will be decided on yea and nay
 vote, that being the constitutional
 method. The governors veto is
 strong presentation of his side of the
 case being one of his ablest documents. There was considerable discussion in the senate Thursday afternoon aftr ad- 1 journment concerning parliamentary usage. Senator Stiles Judson and
 Clerk Alfred C. Baldwin, of Hunting ton, showed themselves to be experts in
 the field. MT. Baldwin, who has been
 through the house clerkships, has the
 rules of the house and senate and the | parliamentary precedsnts in both bod ies at his tongues end. He was in
 quirsd of by Senator Paige in regard to the custom of putting the question on | the governors veto Thursday, and the
 information which he gave was thor
 oughly satisfactory. Senator Paige, | while speaker of the house in 1891, left