Page:EB1911 - Volume 28.djvu/29

Rh Therapeutics of Domestic Animals (London, 1906); Hayes, Stable Management (London, 1903); Dun, Veterinary Medicines: their Actions and Uses (11th ed., Edinburgh, 1906); Tuson, A Pharmacopoeia (London, 1904); Hoare, Veterinary Therapeutics and Pharmacology (London, 1907); Gresswell, The Veterinary Pharmacopoeia and Manual of Therapeutics (London, 1903); Winslow, Veterinary Materia Medica and Therapeutics (New York, 1901); Nunn, Veterinary Toxicology (London, 1907); Laveran and Mesnil, Trypanosomata and the Trypanosomiases (London, 1907); Journal of Comparative Pathology and Therapeutics (quarterly, Edinburgh); The Veterinary Journal (monthly, London); The Veterinary Record (weekly, London); The Veterinary News (weekly, London).

 VETO (Lat. for “I forbid”), generally the right of preventing any act, or its actual prohibition; in public law, the constitutional right of the competent authority, or in republics of the whole people in their primary assembly, to protest against a legislative or administrative act, and to prevent wholly, or for the time being, the validation or execution of the same.

It is generally stated that this right was called into existence in the Roman republic by the tribunicia potestas, because by this authority decisions of the senate, and of the consuls and other magistrates, could be declared inoperative. Such a statement must, however, be qualified by reference to the facts that interdico, interdicimus were the expressions used, and, in general, that in ancient Rome every holder of a magistracy would check a negotiation set on foot by a colleague, his equal in rank, by his opposition and intervention. This was a consequence of the position that each of the colleagues possessed the whole power of the magistracy, and this right of intervention must have come into existence with the introduction of colleagued authorities, i.e. with the commencement of the republic. In the Roman magistracy a twofold power must be distinguished: the positive management of the affairs of the state entrusted to each individual, and the power of restraining the acts of magistrates of equal or inferior rank by his protest. As the tribuni plebis possessed this latter negative competence to a great extent, it is customary to attribute to them the origin of the veto.

In the former kingdom of Poland the precedent first set in 1652 was established by law as a constant right, that in the imperial diet a single deputy by his protest “Nie pozwalam,” i.e. “I do not permit it,” could invalidate the decision sanctioned by the other members. The king of France received the right of a suspensory veto at the commencement of the French Revolution, from the National Assembly sitting at Versailles in 1789, with regard to the decrees of the latter, which was only to be valid for the time being against the decisions come to and during the following National Assembly, but during the period of the third session it was to lose its power if the Assembly persisted in its resolution. By this means it was endeavoured to diminish the odium of the measure; but, as is well known, the monarchy was soon afterwards entirely abolished. Similarly the Spanish Constitution of 1812 prescribed that the king might twice refuse his sanction to bills laid twice before him by two sessions of the cortes, but if the third session repeated the same he could no longer exercise the power of veto. The same was the case in the Norwegian Constitution of 1814.

In the French republic the president has no veto strictly so called, but he has a power somewhat resembling it. He can, when a bill has passed both Chambers, by a message to them, refer it back for further deliberation. The king or queen of England has the right to withhold sanction from a bill passed by both houses of parliament. This royal prerogative has not been exercised since 1692 and may now be considered obsolete. The governor of an English colony with a representative legislature has the power of veto against a bill passed by the legislative body of a colony. In this case the bill is finally lost, just as a bill would be which had been rejected by the colonial council, or as a bill passed by the English houses of parliament would be if the crown were to exert the prerogative of refusing the royal assent. The governor may, however, without refusing his assent, reserve the bill for the consideration of the crown. In that case the bill does not come into force until it has either

actually or constructively received the royal assent, which is in effect the assent of the English ministry, and therefore indirectly of the imperial parliament. Thus the colonial liberty of legislation is made legally reconcilable with imperial sovereignty, and conflicts between colonial and imperial laws are prevented.

The constitution of the United States of America contains in art. i ., sect. 7, par 2, the following order:—

“Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it, if not, he shall return it with his objections to that house in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and, if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become a law. Every order, resolution or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the president of the United States, and, before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.”

In all states of the Union except one the governors, in the same manner or to a modified extent, possess the right of vetoing bills passed by the legislature. Here, therefore, we have again a suspensory veto which is frequently exercised.

According to the constitution of the German empire of 1871, the imperial legislation is executed by the federal council and imperial diet; the emperor is not mentioned. In the federal council the simple majority of votes decides. But in the case of bills concerning the army, the navy and certain specially noted taxes, as well as in the case of decisions concerning the alteration of orders for the administration, and arrangements for the execution of the laws of customs and taxes, the proposal of the federal council is only accepted if the Prussian votes are on the side of the majority in favour of the same (art. vii., sect. 3). Prussia presides in the federal council. The state of things is therefore, in fact, as follows: it is not the German emperor, but the same monarch as king of Prussia, who has the right of veto against bills and decisions of the federal council, and therefore can prevent the passing of an imperial law. The superior power of the presidential vote obtains, it is true, its due influence only in one legislative body, but in reality it has the same effect as the veto of the head of the empire.

The Swiss federal constitution grants the president of the Confederation no superior position at all; neither he nor the federal council possesses the power of veto against laws or decisions of the federal assembly. But in some cantons, viz. St Gall (1831), Basel (1832) and Lucerne (1841), the veto was introduced as a right of the people. The citizens had the power to submit to a plebiscite laws which had been debated and accepted by the cantonal council (the legislative authority), and to reject the same. If this plebiscite was not demanded within a certain short specified time, the law came into force. But, if the voting took place, and if the number of persons voting against the law exceeded by one vote half the number of persons entitled to vote in the canton, the law was rejected. The absent voters were considered as having voted in favour of the law. An attempt to introduce the veto in Zurich in 1847 failed. Thurgau and Schaffhausen accepted it later. Meanwhile another arrangement has quite driven it out of the field. This is the so-called “referendum”—properly speaking, direct legislation by the people—which has been introduced into most of the Swiss cantons. Formerly in all cantons—with the exception of the small mountainous districts of Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Zug, Glarus and Appenzell—it was not a pure democracy, but a representative constitution that prevailed: the great councillors or cantonal councillors periodically chosen by the people were the possessors of the sovereign power, and after deliberating twice passed the bills definitely. Now they have only to discuss the bills, which