The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-04-27
HOLDERS FISH BILL
REGARDLESS OF THE GOVERNOR 1T
WILL NOT BE PRINTED.
Deputy Secretary Wright shows What
He Meant in Speaking of the Errors
I'm the Last Legislative Days.

Senate bill, No. 297 Holler's fish bilD.
which, as announced in the Journal of
Thursday and Friday. Secretary of State
Owen is not going to publish, will probably
be settled in the courts. Governor Mat
thews signed the bill. but there is no doubt
that it was presented to him after an ir-
regular procedure. There is a decision Of
the Supreme Court which says the courts
cannot go back of the Governors sigma
ture to question the legality of a bills
passage. The courts presume that when q
bill is presented to the Governor it has
been properly passed by both houses. but
such is not the case with the Holler bill.
The House failed to pass it, but, never
theless, through a mistake, it was pre-
scented to the Governor. signed by The
Lieutenant Governor. Mr.. Owen, not
withstanding Governor Matthew's mani
festo, is not going to include the bill in
the printed acts. In an afternoon paper
yesterday an interview was published with
Mr.. Matthews in which he rather sarc asti-
cally criticised Mr.. owen and speaks of
Deputy Secretary of State Wright in a
whitening manner. Mr.. Wright smiled when
he read the interview, and said he was in
deed sorry that Mr.. Matthews was dis
pleased with the statements as published in
the Journal. MIR. Wright said in mis- in
terVleW, IN which he referred to the many
errors incident to the rush of the close of
the session, he mentioned no criticism of
the executive department in a spirit of
criticism, but simply for the purpose of
calling attention to the impossibility of ac-
curacy under the present system of doing
the greater part of the legislation in the
last two days of the session.
chat @ the d doctr amaf 81 inf sdid Mr' bs Mri bea5
Incorporated into the Indiana Democratic
PLATFORM, The matter L referred to was
not based on my opinion, however"
Mr.. Wright went to the files and produced
the following letter, written by Governor
his veto of House bill No. IS:
Il file with you House bill No. 285. with
out approving 1t; 1t is an act regulating
decedents and the appointments of es-
tates, and defining the rights of second or
subsequent childless wives and the rights of
of Sections 2 and 3, it seems to me, would
open the way for injustice to heirs in such
estates, and invites unscrupulous specula-
nature, and is so vicious in it's character
that it should not become a law
Representative Mcintosh, who introduced
the bill, which shows that it contained no
new measures, but was passed simply be-
Your letter of April 20, in regard to
House bill No. 2s5, as introduced by my
lature, and vetoed by the Governor, duly re-
ceived. In reply would say that the bill
contemplated no change whatever in the
existing law. 1t is simply a re-enactment of
the law that was passed in 1889 upon the
same subject. That law, owing to Irregular
ity in its title, is very uncertain. and the
validity of it has been questioned by many
of the lower courts. The purpose of this
bill, as introduced hv me, was simply to
correct the error in the former act, and to
render the uncertainty certain, by re-enact-
ing the oiginal act as an independent meas
ure. As stated before no change what
ever was. contemplated"
Concerning Governor Matthew's attack
on me for an opinion given by Mr. Owen
publicly, L have nothing to say" said Mr..
Wright. Il have never found Mr.. Owen in
need of assistance in defending his own
opinions, and while his absence from the
city might indicate a necessity for some
sort of a reply, / am not much of a hand
in this sort of controversy, but / regret ex-
ceedingly having u~nintentionally ruffled the
executive temper, and hope you will express
for me my sentiments of p~rofoundest re-
spect and regard"