The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1883-11-28

il has always been accepted by
the Legislature that they bad no
power to present bill to the Governor
the last two days. aud. consequently. RETAINED
from passing bills. 50 general was the understand
ing that in case the Legislature contemplated
final adjournment before the expiration of the full
term OF either regular Of special session. that the
day of final adjournment was always fixed by
resolution far enough in advance so as not to in
fringe on the Constitution. This done at the
special session of 1875 On the day OF final adjourn
ment at that session a bill was presented to Gov
ernor Hendricks, which Endorsements were
msde. showing that It was not delivered to him
until the last day Without signing ii, or vetoing
It. he delivered it the next day to the Secretaryof
State The Board of Revision, not deeming IL to be
law, did not incorporate il in the Revised
Statutes. The Supreme Court holds, inasmuch
IL is found in the office OF the Secretary of State.
signed by the Speaker aad President OF the Senate.
that it is a law although it appears by the indorse
ment of the Governor, written on the bill itself,
that it was not presented to him until the last day
of the session. and that he did not aaix his ap-
prevail and sign the bill.
Hereafter the Legislature will continue to pass
bills until midnight on the LAT day On the last
two days it would seem the Governor might waive
the Constitutional provision to such bills ne
desired to become laws. and receive them and sign
them: and as to such as he does not wish to APP
prove disapprove, refuse to accept them. and in
this way defeat bill without Veto
The inevitable result of this decision OF
the Supreme Court is to convict the Republi-
can party for the failure OF the appropria-
ton bill. 1t was the duty of Governor
Hanna to have signed the bill, and he had
no discretion on the subject 1t was for
Governor Porter to decide whether he would
sign the bill, when it came 10 him, or reject
it because it was presented to him within
the two days Immediately preceding the adj
journment of the General Assembly, Gov
ernor Hanna could not decide that question
for him. If presented within two days of
the adjournment of the Legislature the Gov
ernor had the right to reject it because il
was so presented, but it was in his power to
waive the objection and sign it, or file it with
the Secretary OF State without his signature,
and render it a valid law The statute
passed on by the Court in case No. 10, 422 was
presented to the Governor on the 18th OF
March. The Legislature adjourned on the
18th of March The Governor did not in
dOTSe on the bill that il was rejected by
him. He did not sign it, but Endorsed
on it that it was received on the
18th OF March The Secretary OF Stare
Endorsed ON the bill that it was received by
hint on the 10th of March. The bill was
subscribed by the presiding officers OF the
Senate and House, and the Court held it to
be law properly enacted and in full force.
The Times, however treats ii as a new
principle enunciated by the Court. 1t is
not new principle but an old principle OF
law, long established and sustained by our
Courts. as shown By the decisions cited by
Judge Elliott in his opinion. The case OF
Evans VS.. Brown. in 80 Ind 5l4. was de-
cided at the May term, 1869. by Judge Frazer,
when the Court was composed of Judges
Ray. Elliott, Frazer and Gregory, all of
whom were Republicans.
The case OF Bender VS.. the State (53 Ind.
November term 1876.
These decisions place the responsibility for
the failure OF the appropriation BIZ on the
Republican party, as twas within the con-
stitutional power OF Governor Porter and
Lieutenant Governor Hanna to render it a
law by their signatures.
Governor Hanna undertook to decide that
it should not go to Governor Porter for his
sanction and that it should not become alaw.
He thrust it in pigeon hole and exclaimed,
ut is killed"
1t was a dangerous exercise of power and
it it shalt ever grow into a precedent and he
recognized and approved as right, it would
be in the power of any Speaker of the House
or President of the Senate 10 defeat any leg
isati9n by refusing to sign the bill. 1t is in
keeping with the history of the Republican
party. It's record has been a history OF reyO-
luton, and defiance of law and OF legal
methods to accomplish partisan ends. Where
law was in the way it has been compelled to
yield and die under the heel of Republican
progress.
When Courts, selected for their experience
and wisdom to settle difficult problems, have
decided against the unconstitutional and rev.
dictionary course of the Republican party,
they have become the subject OF malignant
aspersions by its papers and leaders.
Mobs and riots have become prolific sub
ject for criticism, but the seeds of violence that
seem to grow and fructify have been sown
by the crazy hand of Republicanism in the
opposition and defiance OF law and its vicious
traduction of legal tribunals. The party has
not even spared its own Supreme Court OF
the United States when il has attempted to
break away from party dictation on the civil
rights bill and to adhere to the Constitution.
The thinking people OF this country ought
to reflect where Republican leaders and
methods are carrying them.
MR.. JUSTICE JOHN M. HARLAN'S
OPINION.