The Roswell daily record. [volume] (Roswell, N.M.) 1903-current, 1907-12-27

81 Nd1ClG IilC CaldIlGI pIOflstSuj
thai a majority of those elected should
constitute a quorum. aad eight mem
bers were elected. of whom one was
disqualified, it was held that FIVE eli
gible members were Indispensable
to form a quorum" Dillon, Smith,
Abbott and other standard works on
municipal corporations hold accord
ing1y.
When J. F.. Hinkle was Mayor of
Roswell he ruled, where there was
one vacancy in the Council. thereby
reducing the number of aldermen to
nine, that five was a majority of the
nine, and hence was a quorum, and
with this number the Council could
transact any business, except in mat
tiers of appropriation of money, on
tracts, bylaws, franchises and con-
domination proceedings, when il such
S the statutory requirements of
the majority OF two-third vote of the
members elected, as the case might
be, would he required.
In this ruling of Mr.. Hilkle on the
question of a quorum l did not con-
cur, but disagreed with him at the
time. / am still of the opinion that
five members of the Council is not a
quorum, and if such a ruling has been
made by Mayor Stockard, I do not
concur in such ruling, for the reasons
hereinbefore stated.
The number of votes required to
pass an ordinance in my opinion is
liked by Section 2414 of the Compiled
Laws, which reads:
In the passage or adoption of ev-
cry bylaw or ordinance, and every
resolution or order to enter into on
Trustees of any municipal corpora
ton, the years and nays shall be call
ed and recorded, AND TO PASS OR
ADOPT ANY BYLAW, ORDINANCE.
OR ANY SUCH RESOLUTION OR
ORDER, A CONCURRENCE OF A
MAJORITY OF. THE WHOLE NUM-
Der OF MEMBERS ELECTED TO
THE COUNCIL OR BOARD OF TRUS
TEES SHALL BE REQUIRED"
In the absence of any other law or
| nance which does not carry an appro
priation, making a contract or on
demning property to pass by less
than a majority vote, my opinion is
hat this section inst quoted requires
a majority vote of the members elect
I'd to pass Any ordnance, and l
have always so held.
Section 2414 just quoted was pass
ed upon by the Supreme Court of Ne
braska, where a similar statute is in
force, supplemented by another sec
ton reading word for word as ours;
and in the case of State VS.. Gray, ct
A., 36 Northwestern Rep. SIS, the
court said:
Considering these sections togeth-
er, there can be no doubt that to pass
an ordinance for reorganization of
the city by increasing the number of
wards, and the membership of the
Council, it required the ~concurring
vote of a majority of all the council
mea elected. and the vote of two
members OF a council consisting of
four members was not sufficient. APP
plying this construction to our Coun-
ell consisting of ten members, it
would require a vote of a majority of
all the members elected to pass ANY
ordinance, or six affirmative votes of
the members"
Council Rule 80 provides:-"It shall
require a. Affirmative vote of a ma
jority of the members elected for the
passage of an ordinance providing
for appropriation, contract, bylaw.
or franchise"
1t would cen by this rule by i'm
plicaticn that an ordinance not pro
viding for appropriation, contract,
bylaw, or franchise, could pass by
less than a majority vote of the mem
bers elected. but any such inference
in my opinion is not sound in view
of Section 2414 of the Compiled
Laws, 1897.
Section PALS of the Compiled Laws,
provides: mo street Or highway shall
be opened, Strengthened, or widened,
nor shall any other Improvement be
made, which will require proceedings
to condemn private property. with
out the concurrence in the ordinance
or resolution directing the same of
two-thirds OF the whole number of
the members elected to the council
or board of trustees. and the concur
renee of a like majority shall be re
quired to direct any improvement or
repair of a street or highway, the