The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-02-16
URGING PROMPT
DECISION ON BILL
Briefs For and Against Approval
Will Be Submitted to Gov
ernor To-Day.
FINE LAW POINT INVOLVED
If Vetoed Friends of Enabling
Act Want to Introduce An
other Measure.
FINE LAW POINT INVOLVED

| The Williams enabling net will be
signed by Speaker Cox and Lieutenant
Governor IIllyson to-day, and will be
laid before Governor Stuart for his con-
sideration. Briefs for and against the
approval of tho bill will be filed to-
day or tomorrow. In each case they
Will be simple statements Of the points
at issue. Senator Early, for the oppo-
nents. will submit statement OF the
grounds on which he claims tho bill
| did not pass the Senate. and why he
]. believes it TO be unconstitutional. SEN
ators Walker and Mapp Will submit
statement In defense of tho bill and the
manner OF its passage. Governor
Stuart has indicated that he Will con-
suit parliamentarians and constitu-
I tional authorities OF his own selection
4 before coming to final determination.
Asks for Prompt Action.
Judge Martin Williams, patron of tho
| bill, has asked the Governor to act on
| the matter as promptly rs possible,
for If IL is found that there liz a de-
| rect in the manner of its passage, the
friends OF the measure hope to rectify
/ the error at this session by the imme-
can be introduced after Friday without
una nimous consent.
] Lawyer members of the two houses
! while unwilling TO be quoted In what
arc to a large extent horseback" opin-
| ions. say that the issues raised are
very frankly points of doubt in which
authorities might find ground for de-
cision either way. Admitting this the
friends of the bill assert that it has
been the general custom of tho Virginia
! courts TO resolve such doubts in favor
| of the intended action of the General
/ Assembly, or in the case OF AN cleo
! ton In favor of the way in which the
| majority voted.
/ Governor Stuart will he urged to
sign the bill on the ground that all
| parliamentary uues, .ons are Tor the two
/ houses of the General Assembly to de-
I termine and that constitutional ques-
| lions may DO left TO the courts. The
| Senate makes its own rules OF pro-
| ccdurc, and IL new matter was intro
duced IN the conference report, In vio-
! iation of those rules, the point OF order
should have been made on the floor of
the Senate, and not before the Gov.
ernor.
Il Deep Questions Involved.
\ The constitutional questions involved
4 cut to the very foundations of the gov
crIimcnt and involve the whole issue
OF Initiative and refcrendum--of direct
government or representative govern
neht. Questions arc involved which
4 the courts may desire time to consider
and which few lawyers who had not
already given the subject close study
| would care To pass upon In the short
period allowed the Governor for APP
4 prevail or .,sapproval of a bill
The opposition claims to have
I strengthened It's cas-. by tire charge
that the bill was not read at length Oh
three different calendar days In the
( senate, as required by paragraph OF
section 90 of the State Constitutions 1t
was so read in the House. Speaker Cox
| TO avoid any doubt, directing TINT liz
be read at length instead Of merely by
( title. The Senate journal was not
4 available last night TO show what tx on
the record az 10 the reading, but sew
eral Senators We're positive that ii was
not read ut length on three different
calendar days. The main point on
| which the opposition rests it's case Is
that tho conference report received the
affirmative votes OF less than IL ma
jority of all the members elected TO the
Senate. tt was conceded last night by
lawyer members that a conference re-
port requires the same vote as Is re-
| CURED for the passage OF the bill-that
the adoption of the conference report
Is the final passage of the bill. But it
is not admitted that this particular bill
falls under the class of those described
| curing twenty-onc votes.
Makes No Direct Appropriation.
/ While it lays a charge on each coun-
/ ty and city for expenses OF n special
| election. amounting in all to approx
| mately 100000, 1t is contended that the
bill makes no direct appropriation and
| 80 required for passage only n ma
/ Jority OF those present-not a majority
| OF all those elected. Judge Williams
| said last night that the points involved
! presented To a lawyer an exceedingly
E-nice question, one that would depend
| on the exact wording of the Constitu-
| ton itself For himself he would eX-
| press no opinion, rs IL was Il Senate
!! matter. and was being ably handled
! by Senator Mapp and Senator Walker,
I ablest parliamentarians in either house.
! The claim OF Senator Early that the
| final passage of the bin on the report
! OF the conference committee required
/ Il majority of all the members elected,
| because 1t placed charge OIL the cities
| and counties Of the State, is based on
n part of section so of the Constitu-
ton, which reads:
| mo bill which creates. or establishes
n new office. or which creates. continues
| or revives n debt or charge, or makes
! continues or ravives any appropriation
OF public or trust money, or property.
any claim demand OF the State, or
! which imposes, continues or revvcs Il
| tax, shall be passed except by the
| affirmative vote of q majority of all
! the members elected to each House"