Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-08-17

tons, both to the bill itself and to the man
ner of is passage. The veip message,
which has been published and will be found
on the Legislative Journal, contains the re /
Sons for the veto, as well as the authorities
upon which they rest.
believed then, (and my convictions are
since then strengthened), that the bill, in
vital and material and leading feature, was
unconstitutional, and that its manner of
passing the House was in direct violation of
the consti.ut on of the Sta'e.
Ny attention was first called to l. by a
Senator friendly to the bill, and after its
passage through the Senate, and prior to
its transmission to the House. He brought
it to my Office AMI said in substance: s'The
session is near its close, and The friends of
this bill have apprehensions, if it must
take its plac3 on the House calendar, and
pass three several readings on three several
days, that it will be lost, for the want of
time. There is bill In tho House now on
its third reaGing, hsviDg the same general
objects. Do you believe that the constitu-
ton would be met by Offering the Senate
bill as an amendment 10 or in lieu of
the House bill, and then passing
it, on it's third reading 2" /
replied that 1t was not a new question, aud
that my opinion was the bill would
not under such circumstances have passed
its constitutional readings. stated further,
in reply to bis inquiries, that when a DILL
was presented for my action, the official
signatures of the Speakers of the two
Houses, were, at least, primd tacie evidence
to me that it had passed according 10 the
forms of the Con stitution; but that /
strongly inclined to the opinion thai if e
formal objection were fled together with
copy Of the journal, would be bound to
tase cognizance of the fact, and veto bill
shown by the journals to have passed In
such manner. The merits of the bill were
not then discussed, as l now
recollect; ct least, the question
whether its material provisions
were constitutional, were not considered, as
l now believe. In few days afterwards
Representative Jeup with several other,
members of the House, appeared in my of.
fee, with a protest against the bill, because
Of the manner of its passage in the House,
and proposed to file it with copy of the
House Journal for my consideration. The
bill reached the executive office the same
day, and about the same time Col. A. S.
Colyar and Senator Mcdonnell of Trous4.
dale, appeared and a 'ked permission to pre-
sent an argument supported by authorities
in favor of the bill. The request was cheer
fully accorded, and they presented their
case both verbally and by citation of au-
thorities. The books were read and left
with me. Up to this time, no one had in
timated purpose to present an adVer-e
view, nor had any opponent
of the bill, (only as contained in the pro-
test,) said or written anything to me on the
subject. The next day, however, Col. Burch
and Representative Lindsey asked permits
sion to be heard against the bill. They were
informed that any argument would be
heard, and every authority considered. Mr..
Lindsey handed me communication,
previously published over his signature in
the Banner, saying he could add nothing to
it. Col. Burch handed me a brief of au-
thorities. One or both of them read some of
their citations and left Their books with
me. There was no argument or COM
msnt by either, that 1 recollect. Neither
they, nor any one else ever used
any argument or presented any rea-
son ,or the approval or disapproval of
the bill only as above stated. My action
was the result alone of firm and as | be-
llCfC q wei SlOOAhC0 NOANlNllODg bIob JLC
bill was clearly obnoxious to the Constitu-
ton in the two particulars set forth in the
veto message. 1t never occurred to me that
any l. fuence had been evoked, either for or
against the bill, that was not strictly iegiti- |
mate. had read no comments Of the press,
as recollect. The question, whether the |
gentlemen on either side swho appeared be- |
fore me, one or all of them, had been en-
t.
mind. Nor, until ! friend invited my |
attention to the paragraph in question, did |
l know, suspect or believe, Lor had the idea |
ever occurred to me, That any influence, |
either direct or indirect, had been resorted |
to, or contemplated, either to defeat or |
save the bill, anywhere, or in any aspect, |
save the legal arguments and the citation Of |
authorities already referred to.
And without intending any disparsge
ment to The eminent gentlemen WHO were |
before me, my final action was in strict ac-
cordance with my pre-conceived views of |
the Constitutional questions. And It may |
not be improper to add that, because of the |
great public importance of the bill, and the |
that might flow from my final |
action, l sought the advice of The Attor- !
ney General and several of the most dis
guished juris;s Of the State, and my con-
victions were confirmed By all of them.
Inssmuch as the veto power in Tennes-
zee is vested in the Governor, have felt
it to be my duty to repel by this statement,
what may be reasonably construed into an
insinuation of improper action or the
yielding to improper influences on my part.
Such may not have been tie purpose Of the
but if no injustice to me was in
Tended, tbe language chosen and tie manner
Of making the statement are unfortunate.
JNo. c. BROWN, Governor.