Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1897-03-26
That Veto Message.

regard this bill "a, the ctilrnIilnrnt
OF Il very impracticablc scheme. 1t
forces the state to accept the plans,
formerly adopted, calling for tine cree
ton of Il building to cost, nominally,
Il million dollars. The bill appro-
PIRATES S5O,000 from II fund which
never had an existence, makes the
former award OF the construction to Il
certain contractor ON the original plan
Imperative, and proposes to construct
the building according to the original
plans and specifications, leaving out all
architectural finish and cmbcllish-
ment. The building would he an eye
sore and disgrace. But the PROPOSE
ton is even worse than this. 1t con-
templates that the State shall guaran-
tee interest at four per cent on $780,
900 OF the appropriation. In 1895
$93O,OOO was appropriated from this
same imaginary fund. Warrants upon
this fund without interest guarantee
could not be sold. 1t is fair to infer
that they could not be sold. Only the
S2J0,OOO in guaranteed warrants would
then be available for the construction
Of million dollar structure. This
would doubtless add to the present I'M
slightly foundation but would not give
a complete building, as the contractor
is not to go further than is "practica-
BILE"
But there is another and more potent
reason why | should not sign the bill
1t failed to pass the House by con-
stitutional majority. Senators and
Representatives, verbally and in writ
ing, tell me that the bill did not pass.
My Investigations show me that this
is the truth. The facts in regard to
this matter are that capitol APP
preparation bill was passed by the
House and sent to the Senate; the
Senate amended this bill and passed
the amended bill; the House then re-
fused to concur in the Senate's amended
bill, after which such proceedings were
had that free conference committees of |
the TWO Houses agreed upon q
modified bill, and the committees of |
each House reported the same to their |
respective houses; the Senate by a
constitutional majority passed the free
conference committees bill, but the |
House never did.
The free conference committees bill |
was not the bill that passed the House,
and unless a majority OF the members
of each House voted for the free con-
ference committees bill it has never
rightfully come to me for approval or
as the record shows that |
but thirty-nine members of the House
voted for the amended bill, which num-
Der is not constitutional majority of |
the House.
In the absence of information to the
contrary, would be warranted in as
Stunning that such bills as have been
presented as having passed both
branches of the Legislature have been
duly passed, but where l am appraised
of the fact that a bill has been pre-
scented as having been passed, which in
fact has not passed both branches of
the Legislature, as a part of the law
making power of this State, / am not
only warranted in acting upon the
facts, but, in my judgment, it is
my duty to do so. In brief, it is my
duty to withhold approval from any
purported bill which may know has
not received the sanction of both
branch of the Legislature in the man
ner pointed out by the constitution,
whether or not approve the provisions
set out in the bill. An examination
of the original tally-sheet shows that
the bill which was said to pass in the
closing hours of the late session re-
ceived the assent of 80 members, in
GLIDING the Speaker. Eighteen were
opposed and 81 absent or not voting.
At the bottom of the tally-sheet the
clerk has entered, after his summing
up of the result, these words: "The
bill has therefore failed to pass"
The bill is disapproved this goth day
of March, 1897.
JOHN r. ROGERS,
Governor