The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1913-02-04

thirds of the members elected. There
fore, the speaker declared that the bill
had not passed over the governors veto
An appeal was taken, and the ruling OF
the chair was sustained.
Before making that ruling, the speak.
er noted the provisions OF article IL OF
| the am endments to the state constitu-
ton, which as casual examination
seemed TO imply requirement of the
affirmative vote of majority of the
House, and, without due study or con-
sideration, instanced article IL of the
amendments in his ruling As regards
| this section, however, the ruling was
purely pro forma and therefore not to
be considered a precedent.
Federal Precedent
So far as the president of the Senate
is aware the point at issue has never
before been raised in this state and We
are compelled to look to the federal
presidents and to court decisions in
other states to determine the proper
ruling. The chair has here a brief
prepared by one of the leading attor-
neys of the state and a member of the
have printed in the journal.
BY article ii of the amendments to
the constitution of Vermont tpp. 81, 80
of public statutes) it is provided that
Every bill which shall have passed the
Senate and House of Representatives
shall, before it becomes a law, be pre-
scented TO the governor; if he approve, he
shall sign it; il not, he shall return it,
with his objections in writing, to the
House in which it shall have originated;
which shall proceed to reconsider it. II,
upon such reconsideration, a majority
OF the House shall pass the bill, it shall,
together with the objections, be sent TO
the other House. by which il shall like
wise be reconsidered. and, if approved by
a majority of the House, il shall become
a law
The question is, where a quorum of
the Senate is present and votes on the
question whether a bill shall pass that
body over the governors veto, and the
number voting in the affirmative is less
than a majority of the entire member |
ship. but is a ma jority of those present |
and voting, has the Senate eonstitu-
tionally passed the bill over the vetog
The article of the constitution here !
quoted does not expressly state whether :
the majority required shall be a major
ity of the entire body, or a majority 4
of the quorum; but il is argued that
the words majority of the house" not
being qualified by the words present
and voting" nor by any reference what
ever 20 quorum. the implication must
be that an affirmative vote by a major
ity Of the whole body is essential to
pass a bill over the veto.
II this question related TO the powers
of the House Of Representatives, il seems
clear that II a quorum be present
thereof would be sufficient to
override the veto; for section Of chap
Ter II Of the constitution is express TO
the effect that a majority Of the repre-
seutatives shall constitute a quorum
ior transacting any other business than
-sising a state tax, for which twO-thirds
y the members elected shall be present.
Public statutes. p. 81 4,
AZ 30 the Senate. the constitutional
'royision i that "a majority shall con
ititute a quorum" TART amend 9; pub
i statutes. ,. GIL. and there are no
rords restrictive Of the legislative pow
- Of such quorum
Nov IN constituting a constitution, the I