The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-05-09

E. F. DOLE,
Attorney General
Honorable E. P. Dole, Attorney Cen
eral of the Territory of Hawaii:
Sir-In this behalf a careful exam1-
nation of the authorities leads me to
the conclusion that the Governor has
the power, under the Organic Act, to
approve bill presented TO him before
the adjournment of the Legislature)
after the adjournment of the Legisla-
ture sine die, within the ten-day limi-
tation of the Organic Act, and that
upon such approval the blu becomes a
valid law.
There are two opposing lines of deci-
sion upon this question.
The earliest case was decided In Cali
fornia in 1852, and became the leading
authority in support of the position
that a Governor has not the power to
approve bills after the adjournment of
the Legislature. Fowler VS.. Pierce, 2
Cal 165; School Trustees VS.. County,
1 New, $40; Thornburg VS.. Hermann,
Nev., 400. Dissenting opinion in
Landlord VS.. County (Md.), % Att,
412; dissenting opinion in Detroit VS..
Chaplin, los Mich, 1856.
There is also a dictum to the same
effect in Arizona and Utah.
The contrary position was taken in
New York in 1860, and this case was
followed by the greater weight of au
thority: People VS.. Bowen, q n. Y,
SIT; State VS.. Pagan, % La. Ann, 545;
Solomon VS.. Gainesville, Al Ga, ISL;
Seven Hickory VS.. Ellery, 103 U. s.,
423; La Abra Mining Co. VS.. U. s., IT'S
u. s., 429-451; Burns VS.. Sewall
(Minn). 81; N. W, 224; Landlord VS..
County (Miss.), 1 So, SOL; Detroit VS..
Chaplin. 1OS Mich, 1876.
The provisions of the constitution OF
California at the time of the decision
in Fowler VS.. Pierce (suprD was prac-
tically the same as the provisions OF
our Organic Act.
based on the view that the Governor,
under the Territorial Act, was so COM
ponent a part of the Legislature that
his power necessarily terminated with
that of the Legislature. The Terrific
rial Act reads as follows:
THAT the legislative power and au-
thority of said Territory shall be vest
ed in the Governor and legislative as
sembly" See also Sec 1916 Of the Re-
vised Statutes Of the United States.
In the States where the courts have
taken the position that che Governor
has such power, the decisions are bas-
ed upon the provisions OF the several
constitutions which are, similar TO
those of our Organic Act. The whole
subject is deliberately treated in the
case of Detroit vs. Chaplin (Mich.), re-
ported in 81 L. r. A., 391, and in the
notes thereto; and a perusaf thereof
will inform one so fully, in regard to
the. law in this behalf that I respectful
ly call your attention to that case as
reported.
The case of La Abra Mining Co. VS.
U. s. (supra), decided that the Presi-
dent has the power to approve bills
when Congress is in recess for a time
named, the court expressly refusing to
decide whether the President can sign
bin 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,
would be sustained as valid law. The
other cases are reviewed IN the case Of
Detroit VS.. Chaplin. to which attention
has been. directed in the notes thereto
Respectfully,
JOHN w. CATHCART.
DpDuty Attorney Gouara1