The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1901-05-08
POWER OF THE Governor
MAY SIGN BILLS AFTER SESSION
OF LEGISLATURE.
Deputy Attorney General Cites Devious
Authorities on the Point-An Impor-
tant Opinion.

]. w. Cartwright, deputy attorney
general, has addressed an opinion to the
attorney general in regard to the pow
er of the Governor to approve a bill
after the adjournment of the Legisia-
ture sine die, and within the ten day
Imitation The Attorney General i'm a
signed statement has approved the
opinion and forwarded the same TO the
Governor Tor such action as may be
deemed Leressary. Vhc opinion 81 Mr..
Cathcart is as follows:
In this behalf careful examination
of the authorities leads me to the con-
clusion that the Governor has the pow
er under the Organic Act, to approve
bill presented to him before the ad-
journment of the Legislature after the
adjournment of the Legislature sine
die, within the ten day limitation of
the Organic Act; and that upon such
approval the bill becomes a valid law.
There are two opposing lines of deci-
sion upon this question.
This earliest case was decided in
California in 1852, and became the lead
ing authority in support of the position
that Governor has not the power to
approve bills after the adjournment of
the Legislature.
Fowler V. Pierce. Cal. 1876: School
Trustees V. County, / New. 340 Thorn
burg V. Hermann, 1 New. 400; Dissen-
tine Opinion in Lankford V. County
(Md), 20 Atl. 412; Dissenting Opinion
in Detroit V. Chaplin, 106 Mich. 1856
There is also dictum to the same
effect in Arizona and Utah
The contrary position was taken in
New York in 1850 and this case was
followed by the greatest weight of
authority:
People V. Bowen, 81 N. Y. 517 State
" Pagan, % La. Ann. 545 Solomon v.
Catersville, Al Ca. 161; Seven Hickory
" Ellery, 1O3 U. S. 423 La Abra Mining
Co. V. u. S., 175 u. S. 425-451; Burns V.
| Sewall (Minn), 81 N. w. 224; Lank-
ford V. County (Md), 20 Att. 1017; State
V. County (Miss), l So. SOL Detroit V.
/ Chaplin, lOS Mich. 1856
"The provisions of the constitution of
! California at the time of the decision
in Fowler Pierce (supra) was prac-
tically the same as the provisions Of
our Organic Act.
I'm the Nevada cases the decision
was based on the view that the Cover
nor, under the Territorial Act, was so
component a part of the Legislature
| that his power necessarily terminated
with that of the Legislature. The Ter
| ritorial Act reads as follows
That the legislative power and au-
thority of said Territory shall be vested
| in the governor and legislative assem-
Statutes of the United States.
''In the states where the courts have
taken the position that the governor
has such power, the decisions are basec
upon the provisions of the several con
stitutions which are similar to thoe
of our Organic Act. The whole sub
ject is elaborately treated in the case
of Detroit V. Chaplin (Mich), reported
in 81 l.. r. A. 391, and in the notes
thereto; and a persual thereof will in
form one so fully in regard to the Law
on this behalf, that l respectfully cal
your attention to that case as reported
The case of La Abra Mining Co V
U. S. (supra) decided that the Presi.
dent has the power to approve bills
when Congress is in recess for time
named, the court expressly refusing t.
decide whether the President can sigI
bill after final adjournment of Con
gress for the session. as that question
did not arise in the case. The reason
ing and expressions of the court are
such as to induce the belief that bill
If so signed by the President, woulC
be sustained as a valid law. The othe
cases are reviewed in the case of De
troit V. Chaplin to which attention hai
been directed in the notes thereto.
Respectfully,
"(Signed) JNO. w. CATHCART,
Deputy Attorney General"