The New Orleans crescent., 1868-12-06
TIE SIGNING CT LAWS AFTER ADJoURN-
EENT OF THE LEGISLATURE.

Among the acts passed by the last Legisla-
ture that assembled under the Constitution OF
| 1854 was one relative to notaries public.
This act was not signed by Governor Wells,
but, something more than year after the
| time of its passage it was signed and pro.
mulgated by Acting Governor Baker. Gov.
Warmoth considers this act invalid, for want
Of proper constitutional forms, and he ad.
dressed letter on the subject to the attorney
general, in which he propounded the follow
ing interrogatories, from which the nature OF
his objections may be gathered:
l. Could the governor, under the Constitution oi
1864, approve bill after the expiration Of the
ten days allowed him for examination and action?
2. suppcsing an affirmative answer. could the
governor legally approve bill pas sed by the Le-
gsature under the Constitution Of 1864 after the
adoption by the convention OF the Constitution of
1865?
3. This act not having been promulgated until
the 18th May, lS6S, can 1t be considered having
been " in force at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution" (See article ll9, Constitution
1861
t. is not the first section of this bill "inconss.
tent " with article two of our Constitution in the
qualification of residence of :" five years ?"
The attorney general replies at some length.
He, of course, takes the facts of the case for
granted, aud then, as to the first question he
concludes that the power of the governor
under the Constitution of 1864, to sign
bills after adjournment of the Legislature is
unlimited, provided that the constitutional
delay of ten days has not expired before ad-
journment. His conclusion is derived from
the following article of the Constitution:
Every bill which shall have passed both
Houses shall be presented to the governor; II he
approves he shall sign it," The last clause of the
same article reads as follows: "If any bill shall
not be returned by the governor within ten days
Sundays excepted) after it shall have been pre-
sented to him, il shall be law in like manner as
If he had signed it, unless the General Assembly,
by adjournment, prevents its return"
The remainder of the attorney generals
opinion is so interesting that we give it in full:
The next question that arises in this case is as
to the right of Joshua Baker. governor by appoint
ment OF the United states mlitary commander to
approve aud sign bill first presented by the
General Assembly TO the governor of the State
duly elected snd qualified under the Constitution
OF 1894, after the foTcible removal of said const
tuiional governor from his said sffice.
Ia determining this question we nave to deal with
both facts and law. j. Madison Wells governor
elect under the Constitution of 1864, was removed
from Office June 3. 1867, by reason of which re-
moval Lieutenant Governor Albert Voorhies be-
came governor under said Constitution. II is,
however, true in fact that Benjamin F. Flanders
snd Joshua Baker were subsequently respectively
appointed by United States military commanders
as provisional governors Of Louisiana; but such
appointments not being recognized by the Consti-
tuition OF 1864, the incumbents named, although
possessing military authority to execute the laws,
could not perform any legislative functions such
as pertain to the Office of governor, duly elected
al d qualified under the Constitution aforesaid.
The legislative authority, of which the execu-
tive is part, was derived under the said Consttu-
tion from election by the people, in manner and
form therein prescribed and set forth. (See ar
ticles seven, forty.three and forty-seven, Const
tuition of ls64.)
The acts of Congress known as the reconstruc.
ton acts, did not confer the power OF legislation
upon any person or persons appointed by military
commanders. The authority of such appointees
being only provisional. extended simply to the
execution of the laws actually in force, but in no
manner invested them with power to create new
and permanent laws.
| am therefore of opinion that Joshua Baker
being only governor by military appontment-an
Office not recognized by the Constitution OF 1864 -
he v as without authority to perform any legisls-
tive act, and bad consequently no right to sign the
bill in question.
Had This BILL after having been duly enrolled
and presented" been approved and signed by a
governor recognized by The Constitution of 1864,
there would be some doubt as to your authority
to ignore it but where from q casual examina.
ton it is apparent that the said bin is signed by
person who is known TO have had no authority to
sign the same, You have not only the right, but
it is your duty under article sixty five (65) of the
present State Constitution which provides that the
governor shall take care that the laws be faith
fully executed" to treat this pretended act as a
nulliy and to faithfully execute such laws as this
bill attempted to repeal. am, respectfully, your
most obedent servant,
SIMEON BELDEN, Attorney General.