The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1888-08-04
Notes.
THE REGISTRATION BILL.
Arguments on the Petition Before
the Full Bench.


entitled
Stephen II. Weeks, petitioner for writ Of manda-
mus, vs.. 0ramandel Smith and Charles wv. TIL
den-
The petition sets out at some length the
facts as to the passage by the last legislature
of "An act to regulate the practice Of medi-
cine." its approval by Governor Bodwell and
entry as such on the blotter and register in
the Secretary Of States Office. its subsequent
recall by the Governor, the erasure Of his
name and the attempted veto Of the bill.
The petition prays that writ Of mandamus
may issue to the Secretary Of State and Sec
retary Of the Senate commanding them to
restore said approved act to its place among
the public acts Of the State in the office Of the
Secretary of State; also to cause said act to
be printed forthwith as public act and law
Of the State.
Judge Goddard made the opening argument
He claimed that mandamus Is the appropri
ate remedy in case like this, and apparently
the only adequate one; that the question
whether statute exists and Is valid and in
force or not, Is purely judicial question, q
question for the court; that when the act In
question in this case was once deposited in
the office Of the Secretary Of State, 1t became
part Of the public records OF the State, Of
its public laws, as much as IL IL had remained
there for weeks, and however it may have
been removed or changed or 0bliterated sub
sequently, the existence Of that public record
in perfect condition when first deposited In
the Secretary of States Office must upon any
ground be the subject Of parol evidence. or Of
whatever secondary evidence may be required
to prove the fact.
The Attorney General said that the facts,
as reported In the eyidence-and which are
familiar TO the public, having been fully
published in the newspapers at the time
were not IL dispute, except perhaps the fact
that the billwas taken from the Governors
room and possession with his knowledge
permission or consent; that the defendants
did not admit, but denied.
Now, how, said Judge Goddard, was the
Governor to manifest his approval? Simply
by signing the bill. Such and no other Is
the express language Of the constitution:
'and Is he approve, he shall sign it." That
official act Of approval he was at liberty to
perform at any moment after the bill was
presented, although he was allowed five days,
II he chose to take that time, provided the
legislature continued so long in session. AS
matter of fact the Governor had been de-
liberating about the bill during at least five
days. for he had called upon his private sec
retary for a copy during the previous week,
had read 1t on Sunday and told his secretary
so. Nevertheless the Governor debated"
the subject still farther, giving friends and
foes ample opportunity to be heard during
nor patiently listening to all they had to say
until their arguments were exhausted and
they had left him to the performance Of his
duty.
Finally the Governor having arrived at a
decision turned to the bill which had been
lying all the forenoon upon his desk await
ing his official action, pulled 1t out of its
jacket and proceeded to sign IL; then handed
the approved act to his private secretary.
who must have stood beside him, and who
replaced 1t in its jacket as was his duty to
90 with the approved acts, ready to take 1t
down to the Secretary Of State. where it be-
longed with its predecessors. The Governor
having thus completed his duty by approving
the act and delivering it to his private
secretary in the usual, ordinary and un-
variable course of public business left the
executive chamber for the forenoon and
went to his home In Hallowell for dinner.
During his absence and In the usual course
OF official duty, well known to the Governor,
his private secretary took the approved act
down to the Office where 1t belonged and de-
liyered It into the custody OF the clerk whose
duty had been for whole generation to re-
ceive and .enter approved acts. That clerk
in charge Of the office received the act from
the hands Of the Governors private secre-
tary, made the usual minute OF its number
on the margin Of the act itself, and then en-
tered 1t with the date Of its approval in the
only book ever kept in the Office Tor that
purpose. Up. 45.)
Can there be any reasonable doubt that
every requirement of the Constitution had
been performed to give validity and full ef-
feet to the registration act? Had not the
Governor done all to that act which he had
done to any other approved act of the ses-
sion?
Had he not given much more attention and
deliberation to the registration act than was
possible ior MIN 70 Destow upon most OF the
other bills which he had approved2 Did
anything remain for him to PERFORM If so,
what was IL? Is there any doubt that when
he signed that bill and delivered IL over to
his private secretary, he expected 1t to take
the usual and ordinary course OF other ap-
proved acts; course perfectly familiar TO
him? When, after dinner. he inquired Of
his private secretary where the act was, did
he express any surprise at the answer? Did
he find any fault with the secretary for de-
posting it in the Office Of the Secretary Of
State? Did he ever demand its return? On
the contrary, his language was, as stated by
Mr.. Stevens to the Secretary Of State, that
he wanted to see the bill" II any one act
Of that legislature received thorough, care
ful, deliberate examination and approval, 1t
was the registration act.
Attorney General Baker on the part OF de-
PENDANTS contended that the only case where
the court will inspect the journals of the
houses OF the legislature Is to see II some
formality necessary and indispensable TO its
validity as an act has or has not been per.
formed; that Is not this case. And even In
such a case the court Of Michigan refused to
disturb on enactment where its validity had
been recognized by subsequent legislation.
Now in this case there can be no question
but that when this act was lost In the Senate
in 1887 and passed upon by them 1t was re-
fused a passage by vote Of 10 to Z. They
refused by that vote to pass Ii over the veto
message Of Governor Bodwell. IL never be-
came law and the people of the State have
governed themselves accordingly. It Is no
in the matter asked for by this petition and
1t ought not to be done on any doubtful evi.
dence or upon any uncertain contentious Of
law.
Now. this tribunal is asked to set up its
judgment against that Of both the other CO.
the wisdom Of this law, and asked to do 1t
after the lapse Of year and a half from the
time when all these events occurred, and af-
ter Gov. Bodwell's lips are sealed by death.
! submit that the court has no power to act
In this matter, where every constitutional
step has been taken to complete the rejection
of the law.
The Attorney General contended that the
blotter in the Secretary of States Office, kept
by MIR. Mllliken, was not public record, in
to the mutilation Of which the court could in
quire. IL was merely private memorandum
for Milliken's own use, not required BY law
to be kept, and he could preserve it or not as
he pleased. He also claimed that the Cover
nor has tiye full days to approve OF disap-
prove bill, during which time he may put
his name to 1t and erase 1t as many times as
he, chooses, providing he does not by any
voluntary act, knowingly and Intentionally,
put 1t out Of his custody into the keeping Of
some independent department; and no ''rou-
tine business" by the clerks, however long
continued, can strip him of that constitu-
tional right and power.
MIR. Baker then called the attention OF the
court to several embarrassing features Of the
bill providing the prayer OF the petltl9n
should be granted by the court and the act
placed ON the statute book. For instance, u
provides for the appointment OF a commits
sion by the Governor. viii the court be
asked to issue a writ to the Governor COM
pelling him to appoint such commissionp 1t
also provides that all eligible physicians
shall register ON or before January 1, 1888,
and if they practice without such registry
fine and in some cases Imprisonment. If a
new date Is to be substituted, what date
shall it be and who is to do it?
These are few Of the important points
made by Mr.. Baker and lack of space pre-
vents a fuller abstract.
Judge Symonds will reply in the morning.
This is the last case for argument and the
court viii adjourn finally this forenoon.