Perth Amboy evening news. [volume] (Perth Amboy, N.J.) 1903-1959, 1906-10-30
Courts Decision on Governors S
Right TO Sign Bills After Ad-
jOurnment Of the Legislature.
THE BLOOMFIELD CASE.
Supreme Court in Atlantic Case Re-
fused to Give Opinion on tho Mat
ter but i'm the Case Brought Be-
fore 1t by Charles A. Bloomfield, in
Attacking the jackson Bill the
Question Must BE Met Squarely.
Special to the EVENING NEWS:

Special to the EVENING NEWS:
TRENTON, Oct. 3O:-Justice
Forts opinion deciding the certio-
! rari case of Lorenzo Bye and others
against Atlantic City will be of par
ticular interest to Middlesex county
because there was raised in the pro-
ceedings the right of the governor to
sign bills after the legislature has
adjourned, exactly the same ques-
tion which has been brought before
the supreme court by Charles A.
Bloomfield in the certiorari proceed
ings he has instituted against the
Board of Freeholders of Middlesex
county with reference to the Perth
Amboy bridge. While in the Atlantic
City case the supreme court practic-
ally lodged the question, what it had
to say on this particular point was
eagerly read by all persons interested
in legislative matters, and is causing
much comment throughout the state.
The Atlantic City proceedings were
an application to set aside a paving
contract, and involved an act ap-
proved by Governor Stokes May 2,
1906, more than a month after the
sine die adjournment of the legisla-
ture. The application was denied.
Justice Fort wrote the opinion,
which has just been filed in the su-
preme court. Touching the matter in
question it says:
1T was suggested that the act ap-
proved May 2, 1906, was approved
after the legislature had adjourned
and was, therefore, unconstitutional,
because beyond the power of the gov
ernor to approve. Nothing appears
before us upon the question except
the mere statement of counsel, and
we do not deem this sufficient to JUS
| tify the allowance of writ, even, if
in our view there was any force in the
suggestion, upon which no opinion is
expressed"
Have Avoided Decision.
People familiar with the state
courts remember that this same
question has been raised several
times before in cases that have come
up. In each instance the court has
avoided any semblance of a decision
with as much studied care as in the
case now under discussion. The
seeming disinclination of the of the
supreme court justices to pass upon
the question has led to the belief
that If the matter was ever put
squarely before the court the decision
would be adverse to the present GUS
tom under which the governor may
approve a law, no matter how i'm
portant, any old time after the legis.
lature has adjourned.
Charles A. Bloomfield has brought
the matter squarely before the court
and there can be no longer a post
ponement of the settlement of what
is undoubtedly one of the most mo-
mentous questions ever raised in this
state. The effect of a decision hold
| ing that the governor had no right
to approve a bill after the Legislature
has adjourned would be far reach,
ing and tremendous. 1t would have
most important bearing on every
| law now on the statute books that
was put there under this post-ap-
proving methed, and they are on the
books by the hundred. One effect
would be that always in the future
when there was raised any question
whatsoever which had any basis IL
any of these laws, the danger would
be that the question would fail on
the ground that the law was uncon-
stitutional for the reason stated.
Cannot Escape This Time.
The court will have no ground to
raise in the Bloomfield case the OBJ