The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1914-02-20

mated. This was not done, as the
house having less than a quorum
present on April could do nothing
except adjourn from day to day
Hence, under this reasoning, tc
make effective the repassage, by the
curative resolution of June 81, of the
election bill in the house, it would
have been necessary to transmit II
again to the senate for action, in or
der that the sequence of events pres
cribed by the constitution in enact
ing vetoed legislation, should be car
ried into effect.
! To these conclusions the minority
in the opinion by Justice Lansden
does not agree. Candor compels us
to admit, that while we do not agree
with the conclusions reached by him
the opinion of Justice Lansden is an
exceptionally able paper. 1t is a
we'll considered and forcibly express
ed document. The minority insist
that the action of the house on June
q in passing the socalled curative
resolution, in the presence of a
quorum, was a substantial compliance
with the requirements of the consti.
tuition with respect to passing legis-
lation over the veto of the governor.
The fact that the law had been re-
considered and passed in the senate
prior to the repassage of the same
in the house, although house bill,
was not, in the opinion of the minor
ity, fatal defect.
The minority Of the court, in effect
take this position, that the election
bill having been repassed by the con-
stitutional and requisite vote in the
senate, having subsequently been
given similar reconsideration and
re-passage in the house, therefore all
of the substantial requirements of
the organic law had been met. The
very fact that the time or order or
sequence prescribed by the constitu-
ton was not strictly observed, in
that the bill was reconsidered in the
senate, before it's reconsideration in
the house in which it originated,
should not, in the judgment of the
minority, defeat the plain and OBJ
vious will of the legislative major
ity. The objection that at the time
the resolution of June 81 was adopt
ed and the bill reeonsidered in the
house and repassed, the original bill,
or paper itself, was reposing in the
secretary Of states Office and there
fore out of the jurisdiction of the
house, it held to be merely technical.
The bill" is held to mean the pro-
position of legislation" and was pro-
perly before the house of June 81
and was reconsidered and repassed
with constitutional quorum present
and a majority voting for the same.
While, in the Judgment of the minor
ity, the quorum clause of the consti-
tuition is mandatory, it is held that
where the substance of the constitu-
tional requirements are observed no
valid objection can be found to the
legal effect thereof 1t must be con-
coded that many opinions of the
supreme court Of the state are cited
in support Of these conclusions.
1t was an interesting legal PROPOSE
lion. 1t involved questions of law so
intricate and distinctions so nice,
that the court could have decided
he litigation either way and have
found abundant legal authority for
is conclusions. But as a broad poll
,ical proposition there was but one
side to the question. The act of
1918 was patiently, manifestly and I'M
leniably a deliberate effort to turn
he entire election machinery of the
state over to a lawless special inter-
est. This purpose, it is gratifying to
state, majority of the court has
,hwarted.