Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 24.djvu/227

Rh VETO 207 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 colleagixed authorities, i.e., Avith the commencement of the republic. In the Roman magistracy a twofold power must be distin- guished, the positive management of the affairs of the state entrusted to each individual and the power of re straining the acts of magistrates of equal or inferior rank by his protest. As the tribuni plel&amp;gt;is 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 Avas established by law as a constant right, that in the imperial diet a single deputy by his protest &quot; Nie pozwalam,&quot; i.e., &quot;I do not permit it,&quot; 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, Avhich 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 per sisted in its resolution. By this means it Avas endeavoured to diminish the odium of the measure ; but, as is Avell knoAvn, the monarchy Avas soon afterwards entirely abo lished. Similarly the Spanish constitution of 1812 pre scribed that the king might tvice refuse his sanction to bills laid tAvice 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 is the case in the Norwegian constitution of 1814. In the present French republic the president has no veto, except against decisions of the general councillors (conseils generals du departements), just as the prefect pos sesses the same pOAver against decisions of the communal councillors. 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 noAv be considered obsolete. The governor of an English colony has the pOAver of veto against a bill passed by the legislative body of a colony, e.g., Canada. 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 parlia ment would be if the croAvn Avere to exert the preroga tive of refusing the royal assent. The governor may, however, Avithout 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 con structively 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 Avith imperial sove reignty, and conflicts betAveen colonial and imperial laAvs are prevented. 1 The constitution of the United States of North America contains in art. i., sect. 7, 2, the folloAving order : &quot; Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it becomes 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 recon sideration, 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 Repre sentatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) 1 A. V. Dicey, Lectures Introductory to the Shall/ of the Law of the Constitution, p. 105 sq., 2d ed., London, 1886. 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 tbe case of a bill.&quot; In most States of the Union the governors, in the same manner or to a modified extent, possess the right of pro testing against the laAvs and decisions of the legislature. Here therefore we have again a suspensory veto Avhich is frequently exercised. According to the official report for 1886, the president of the United States exercised his right of veto in that year 115 times against bills, resolutions, and orders of the most different kinds. Between 1840 and 1850 the Whigs agitated for the total abolition of the poAver of veto. Of late an agitation has begun in the opposite direction. 2 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 Avell as in the case of decisions concerning the alteration of orders for the admini stration, 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. 7, sect. 3). Prussia presides in the federal council. The state of things is therefore in fact as folloAvs : it is not the German em peror, but the same monarch as king of Prussia, Avho has the right of veto against bills and decisions of the federal council, and therefore can prevent the passing of an im perial laAV. 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 poAver 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 Avas 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 Avithin a certain short specified time, the laAV came into force. But, if the voting took place, and if the number of persons voting against the laAV exceeded by one vote half the number of persons entitled to vote in the canton, the law was rejected. The absent voters Avere considered as having voted in favour of the laAV. 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. For of late years the so-called &quot;referendum,&quot; properly speaking, direct legislation by the people, has been introduced into most of the SAVISS cantons. Formerly in all cantons Avith the exception of the small mountainous districts of Uri, Schwyz, Untenvalden, Zug, Glarus, and Appenzell it Avas not a pure democracy, but a representative constitution that prevailed : the great coun cillors or cantonal councillors periodically chosen by the people Avere the possessors of the sovereign poAver, and after deliberating tAvice passed the bills definitively. NOAV they have only to discuss the bills, which are printed and sent to all voters Avith an explanatory message ; then the people on a certain day vote for the acceptance or rejection of the laAV by Avriting &quot; yes &quot; or &quot; no &quot; on a printed voting- 2 Rlittimaun, Das Nordamfrikanische Bundes-Staatsrecht verglichen mil den poHtischen EinricJitungen dcr Schu-eiz, i. 244 and 245, Zurich, 1867 ; D. Webster, Works, ii. 337 and iii. 416, Boston, 1858.