The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-04-03
A CASE IN POINT DECIDED.
4 Law Invalid Which Is Not Passed
Within the Constitutional Limit.
The Opinions Given in the Hasselman Case
by the Judges of the Superior Court,
the Alleged Law of 1875.

In the suit of o. H. Hasselman the Board
of County Commissioners, of the principal
questions involved is the validity OF an act now
on the statute books, to which extended refer
ence has been made, because it did not reach
Governor Hendricks within the time prescribed
by the constitution, at the Legislature Of 1875,
but was enrolled and sent to the office
OF the Secretary of State as though
it had been regularly passed The
question has particular interest on account Of
the recent discussion whether or not Governor
Porter had the right to sign the general appro-
pration BILL which did not reach him until the
last day of the session. By consent. the point in
volved in the HasCelman suit was referred to the
judges of the Superior Court in general term,
and their opinions were solicited. They were
given yesterday, and, in general, they were as
follows: Judge Walker held that the plaintiff
might show that the law was invalid, and he
was himself of the opinion that it was. Judge
Howe held that inasmuch as the en-.
rolled copy was found with the other laws
in the office of the Secretary of State,
inquiry could be made as to whether or not
it now law. Judge Taylor held that the
inquiry ought to be opened, but there was de-
csion to the contrary in the case of Evans vs.
Browne. 30th Indiana that such an inquiry could
not be made.
THE PITH OF THE OPINIONS.
Judge Tayor's opinion was very carefully pre-
pared, and the following extract from it will be
of interest ON account of its relevancy to recent
discussion:
"Judge Howe, after examining and consider
ing the question at considerable length gives 1t
as his conclusion that the act of 1875 is valid.
concur with Judge Howe in this conclusion, as
it appears to be unavoidable from the rule de-
oared by the Supreme Court lin Evans VS..
Browne, Both Ind, 81 and since adhered to;
but in so doing wish it to be distinctly under
stood that do not subscribe yield assent to
the wisdom and propriety of the reasoning upon
which that rule seems to have been established.
THE Constitution provides: But no bill shall
be presented TO the Governor within two days
next previous to the final adjournment of
the General Assembly, This clause pre-
sents the question in this case. It means
something or it means nothing, and II 1t means
anything, it is just what it says for there is not
the least ambiguity i'll its terms. In my opinion
ii is imperative and directory, Tor the prot
ton of the people of the State against rash, i'm
polite and partisan legislation which is most
likely to happen near che close of a session, and
as proper aid to that result to keep the General
Assembly from postponing its work and press
ing II all into the last days of the session. and
not for the mere convenience of the Governor.
In my opinion, bill presented to the Governor
within the time named, next before the final ad-
jOurnment of the General Assembly, cannot
rightly he held TO be u law under the cOnstitu-
tion; it may exist by sufferance and meet with
voluntary observance, but that does not settle
the question"
Judge Walker, who gave a verbal opinion,
held that no injunction could lie to prevent the
violation OF the contract, and concurred in the
views expressed by Judge Taylor concerning
the validity of the law, but did not agree that
the cases cited in 30th ana SD Indiana
decided the question, but that they could only
hold that no search can be made beyond the
enrolled bill. They do not decide that all judi
cial inquiry is precuded as to the date When the
Governor gets the bill. l think that fact is capa-
BILE of proof, and If, within two days Of adjourn
ment, the law is invalid the courts ought not
DN any such construction aDrOGar6 the plain
provision of the constitution. If the fact is not
capable Of proof the provision ID absolutely
nugatory.
Judge Howe's opinion was solely on the case
at Issue, the principal points in it being as fol-
lows:
can injunction for breach of contract will not
lie where the plaintiff has a plain, adequate.
legal remedy in an action for damages. Kerr
lDJunctiOns, Am. Ed, X, 494; High Intnnc-
lions, ed, S1,107) In determining as to the
validity OF the act IN relation to purchase by
county commissioners of hooks, stationery, etc,
iActs Reg SEES, 1875, p 81, conrrs cannot, for
the purpose or aSceri aiming whether II pre-
sented to the Governor within the time pre-
scribed by the constitution, look at the ndOrse-
ments made upon the enrolled bill in the office
of the Governor, nor at the Endorsements made
upon IL in the office of the Secretary of State,
nor can the legislative journals he examined for
such purpose. go Ind, SD; 80 N. j. Law, 20
s. c.: 5 Am. Law Reg, N. s., 679: % i'd, 254; 10
New. 176, 8. O.; 81 Am. Rep, 72l; 81 Alb. Law
Journ., 1857"
1t will be seen from the above that Judges
Taylor and Walker, who alone considered the
matter of a bill being passed in the last days of
the session, held positively that it could not be
done, and, as they have given the matter care
full consideration, their opinions are entitled to
much weight Although two of the decisions
made are adverse to the plaintiff in the Hassel-
man suir, 1t will probably be continued on the
ground that the law in question does not in vail
date HasStlmans original contract for furnish
ing the county stationery.