The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1909-03-05

and his veto of the resolution was in
effectual That the two branches Of
the Legislature could meet in joint con
ventin by mere motion, invitation OF
resolution. And cited the case of the
sinking fund commissioners, etc., VS.
George & Co. Kentucky Reports. Vol
ume 1O4, Pages 200 to 2Ss.
The Kentucky constitution is sim.
liar TO the Tennessee constitution as
TO adoption of resolutions. The legis-
lature of Kentucky passed a bill pro-
viding for the election of three peni-
Tertiary commissioners, one for two,
one for four, and one for six years.
The governor vetoed the bill and 1t
was passed over his veto. The legis-
lature then passed a resolution to meet
in joint convention for the purpose of
nominating these commissioners. but
the governor vetoed the resolutions,
as the governor of Tennessee has
done.
The legislature then met in joint
convention under the resolution, after
it was vetoed, and elected said peni-
Tertiary commissioners and the court
of appeals of Kentucky, in passing on
the constitutionality of the matter,
said: 1t is claimed that the commits
sioners could not have been elected
except by the respective bodies of the
general assembly, in their separate ca
ring therein; that the joint resolution
authorizing meeting of the joint
assembly for the purpose of electing
the commissioners should have been
approved by the governor before it
went into effect. The act authorized
the general assembly to elect the COM
missioners on or before the 10th day
of March, 1898, regardless of the wish
es of the governor. 1t was passed
over his objections. BY the terms of
the act, it could meet at any time on
or before that date. BY motion in
each house a time could have been
designated when the members of the
general assembly could meet in joint
session to elect the commissioners.
The joint resolution simply answered
the purpose of such motion.
Approval Not Necessary.
THAT being the purpose of the
joint resolution of the two houses, it
certainly was not necessary to obtain
the approval of the governor, because
the general assembly had, by the
passage OF the act, been empowered to
elect the commissioners. The COVER
nor could not invalidate the election
by his disapproval of the result. We
are of the opinion that any cotton,
either by motion, order, or resolution, !
which the senate and house might |
have taken with a view Of meeting In |
joint session to elect the commission |
ers, could be done without presenting |
it to the governor We are of the |
opinion that section SO Of the constitu.
ton was not violated when the general
proceeded to the election |
IF the commissioners without the ap-
prevail of the governor If the views
IF counsel for appellants are correct,
he governor could have prevented an
election under the act, and thus de-
;troyed it, by simply holding for six
lays resolution fixing the time when
he general assembly should meet in
oint session to elect the commission
,rs. He could not prevent the bill
rom becoming a law by vetoing it,
ret he could defeat it's operation by
ailing to approve the resolution, or
he result of the vote. We cannot
gree that counsels views on the ques-
ion are correct The commissioners
eceived majority OF the votes of
10Th houses, and of each house, and ]
we're duly elected
For these reasons, the point of or
er is not well taken and is, therefore,