Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1901-04-10
reasoning and argument. supported the

reasoning ana arguments SUppOTIeu Tic
rule.
Shall we. then, apply the mandatory re-
qui,ement of section Is relating to the
attestatiOn Of bills to Acts which have
hecn vetoed By the Governor, and Ivy the
provision nf said section IS are require
t" lie laid before the next Legislature for
reconsideration and have passed over his
veto? This is the precise question.
Sec,in" IS reads as follows: Every
hill which may have passed the Legisla-
ture, shall, tefore it becomes law, be
presented to the Governor. If he approve
il. he shall sign il; but if not, he shall re-
tnrn it 18th his objections t" the House
in which it originated, which House
shall cause such objections TO ne entered
upon its journal, and proceed t" recon-
slider it. II, after such reconsideration, it
aga passes both Houses by yeas and
"nys by "a vote of two thi, ds Of the menu
ber> elected to each House, it shall he
come law, Notwithstanding the Cover
nor's objections. If any bill shall not lie
returned within five days after it shall
ha> ieen presented to him Sundays ex-
received it, the same shall be lasu in
ike manner as if he had signed it, unless
the Legislature, Ivy it's final adjournment,
prevents such return, in which case it
shall be law, unless the Governor with
i" ten days next after the adjournment
Sundays excepted) shall file such bill,
with his objections thereto, in the ,ffice
If the Secretary of State. who shall lay
the same before the Legislature at its
next session, in like manner as If it had
been returned 10y the Governor; and
if the same shall receive the vote
of two-thirds of the members elected
to each branch of the Legislature, upon a
vote taken by the yeas and nays to he
entered upon the journals of each house,
it shall become a law"
1t will be observed that sections IS and
30 are found in the same icles-the
Article devoted to the legislative depart
inert of the State Government-and
u der the familiar and well established
rule when construction is necessary,
should lie read and construed t. gether.
Ii is claimed by the relator that nO,with-
section lS relating TO the attestation by
the Officers of the respective Houses as
applied to bills which become laws. with
or without the Governors approval, that
such mandatory requirements can have
no application to bills which are passed
over the Governors objections at the
next session of the Legislature for the
bot = l,o icsD oe .os
authorize the court to go the journals OF
the respective Houses for the evidence
| that the constitutional requirements oil
its enactment and existence as a valid
| law. For the same reason and by the
same logic it could be as we'll said that
the requirement Of section 8 relating t.
| the signatures Of the proper officers t.
bills which are laws by the Governor.
approval, or without his approval b,
lapse Of time, is not mandatory, an,
therefore not essential to the existence O
/ the law as section IS contains the provis
ion that the vote on every bill or join
resolution shall be taken by yeas ant
nays to be entered on the journals of eac
House, and majority of all member
elected to each House shall be necessar
to pass every bill or joint resolution
Ii we so hold, we place the framefs of on
Constitution in the anomalous positio
of requiring Acts passed by mere cor
stitutional majority to lie attested by tn
signatures of the chief officers of the Les
islature as the only and conclusive ev
dence Of their enactment, and in the SAN
Article treating of the same subject, pc
hitting the existence of another A.
which meets the disapproval Of a coo
dinate branch of the Government, exc
cising constitutional power over legi
!ation, and which Act must again be col
sidered by the Legislature and recei'
more than majority of the membe
! elected to each branch thereof in order
> overcome such disapproval, to rest upt
record which may be, 8 pointed out
Justice Beatty in The State v. Swift,
uncertain, inaccurate and incomplete
to unsettle the entire statute law of Il
State.
The relatOr cites two cases decided
the Supreme Court of Indiana, the City
| v. Auc SIdtc, Ito Auuldud, \
$ and The State v. DENY, l18 Indiana,
which he claims support his contentic
u While there are many points of simil;
II ity between the cases cited and the CO
< at bar, we are Of the opinion that the co
stitutional provisions of the State of
n diana are such as to easily distingui
"a those cases from the one we are consid
RI ing and render the application of the r.
" of construction adopted by that court
u applicable here. Section ii of the c.
81 stitution Of Indiana, which correspor
rs to our section IS, is found in Article v
AS the Indiana Constitution. That Articl
te devoted to the duties and powers of
"a executive department of that Goverme
r. Section % Of the Indiana CONSTITUTE
ID which corresponds to our section 10
he found in Article Nv of the Indiana
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS oeraeecaSAcatoe-eo