The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1889-05-30

Better,-far better that provision should Oc-
mistake or even fraud, than that every act, state
ana National. should at any and all times be liable
70 De put IN issue ami impeached by the journals.
loose papers OF the legislature and parol evidence
Such state of uncertainty in the Statute laws OF
the land would lead to mischefs absolutely into-
cradle"
The court of Ohio in State v. Smith, "A, o.
$40, says:
Public policy requires that the authority OF
laws should rest upon public memorials of the
most permanent character. They should be pub
nc, because an are required to conform to them;
they should be permanent that rights acquired
today upon the faith of what has been declared TO
be law shall not be destroyed tomorrow, or at
some remote period of time by facts resting oDly
in the memory of individuals"
In contrast with these sound doctrines.
compare the mischiefs flowing from the Sc
rles OF decisions of the Illinois Supreme
Court, holding printed statute of the State,
that had been solemnly certified and signed
by the presiding officer of each house and
approved by the governor and filed and pub
llshed as law, to be void, because the legisla-
tive journals did not show all constitutional
requirements to have been had in its passage
ana consequently, that municipal bonds, is
sued in conformity with the published stat
ute, were void in the hands of innocent hold
ers, who thereby suffered irreparable loss in
trusting to published statute of the State.
Moreover, the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States was compelled to sustain these de-
questions of which the decision of the State
Court was conclusive. Post v. Supervisors
105 U. 5. 667, and cases their cited.
In the case at bar, the act in question is
found in the secretary's office, the archive of
the State. Upon it is Endorsed the certjf-
cate OF the presiding officer of each house
of the legislature, under date of March IL,
showing that the bill having had three sew
eral readings In the house and two several
readings in the Senate passed that day to be
fC oil i'll &c
cate OF the secretary of the Senate of the
same date. Returned to the Senate by the
governor. Signature refused. Failed of a
passage over his Veto"
This act with the Endorsements upon it is
record OF the highest order, and, under the
doctrines above declared, is absolutely con-
elusive, unless upon its face it bears its own
death wound"
An inspection of the act discovers above
the certificate of the Secretary of the Senate
and under the certificates of the presiding
officers of both houses the words, 'sApproy.
ed March 16, 1887, and the signature of the
Governor, with heavy line in ink drawn
through the March 16, and the name Of the
Governor.
This supposed inirmity may explain itself,
pears to have been the day before the bill
passed either house of the legislature to be
enacted, as IL the bill, by mischance. had
been .prematurelv sent to, and by mistake
signed, by the Governor, who, upon discover
ing the error, corrected the same by making
the erasure and returning the bill to the leg
lsiature to be put upon its final passage.
But however this may, be, accompanying
the original act is found the veto message of
the Governor, under date of March II, that
mad been returned with the act to the SEN
ate, with his objections, as required by the
Constitution. This is also record of high
order, and most completely cures the sup
posed irregularity shown upon the face of
the act, and is conclusive evidence that the
same was returned to the Senate without ex-
ecutiye approval No act of the legislature
can become a statute when the Governor
wlthholds his approval and seasonably re-
turns the same to the proper house with his
objections. This act was returned to the
proper branch Of the legislature on the same
DAY oil lts passage by the Governor with his
veto. That was deliberate act, solemnly
done, by the chief Executive of our State,
and has passed into arecOrd so complete and
conclusive, that no evidence of lower
grade can be permitted to overthrow it. He
alone was trusted by our people to WELD the
veto power land his own solemn declaration
OF the exercise ofIthat power, within constitu-
tlonal limits, Is as conclusive upon the judi
ciary, coordinate branch of the govern
ment, as the certificates of the presiding Off
GERS OF the Senate and House are conclusive
of the passage of an act therein.
The signature OF the governor to an act of
the legislature is conclusive evidence of ex-
ecutlve approval against every one but him
sell. lie alone should be permitted to dis
pute it, and only then while he holds control
OF the act. and before he shall have deposited
the same in the archives of the State; for
then 1t becomes operative, as expressing the
legislative will in the form of a statute Peo-
pie VS.. Hatch, 10 Ill. 2S3 1t has then passed
under the control of constitutional officer
whose duty is to carefully keep and pre-
serve" it, He is neither required to enroll
1t, by copying IL upon book of records, nor
to enter its receipt upon special book kept
In his Office for that purposes and whatever
books of that sort he does keep for his own
convenience and to aid in the proper dis
patch OF business, are simple remembrances
of no more probative force than other parol
evidences Of equal credit
The relator seeks to oyerturn the solemn
record that stands against him, by the testi-
mony OF the governors private secretary and
other witnesses. tbe governor being dead,)
whose evidence Is supposed to show that the
governor approved the act by signing it and
leaving IL upon his table in the executive
chamber to be taken to the secretary's office,
in the usual course of business, where it was
taken during the governors absence at din
ner, but who, upon his return, Immediately
called for the act, and on the same day re-
turned 1t to the senate with his veto.
Had the act been deliberately deposited in
the secretary's Office by the governor. 1T is
not to be presumed that the secretary of
State would have surrendered It and allowed
it to have been taken from his custody. On
the other hand, il by mistake 1t was left in
his office without authority from the COVER
nor, 1t could hardly be considered as the de-
post of document in his custody. and
therefore did not become the record of a
statute that If lost or destroyed could be de-