Perth Amboy evening news., 1906-12-22
TO DODGE THE
ISSUE AGAIN.
Supreme Court Has Found a Way
TO Get Around the Bloomfield
Case Against FreehOlders.

TRENTON, Dec. 22:-Governor
Stokes recently received from Will
liam H. Fleming, of the Treasury De-
partment OF the United States, a let
ter which has revived the gossip con
corning the right of the governor TO
sign bills after the sine die adjourn
ment of the legislature. Mr.. Fleming
inclines to the belief that executive
approval is just as valid after the
legislature has adjourned as while it
is in session and cites one or two in
stances in support of that contention.
The letter was prompted by some
press comments relating to the GER
tiorari proceedings instituted in the
Supreme Court by Charles A. Bloom
field against the Middlesex Board of
Freeholders. In this suit it seemed
as if the question of the governors
right, which has been avoided by the
court in all previous litigations, was
presented in such a manner hat the
court would have to decide it one way
or the other. Until recently lawyers
themselves have thought hat the
Bloomfield case would evoke such a
decision, but recently this opinion has
changed and the impression has gain
ed ground hat the court will once
more decline to settle the mooted
question.
Because of the widespread effect
that a decision holding that the gov
ernor had no authority to sign meas
ures after adjournment would have,
it was agreed that the -attorney-gen-
eral should have leave to file a brief
on behalf of the state in support of
the executive authority. There is no
.coor1 ~ o,xy c,,oh h,iof having hnan
filed in the case and this is probably
responsible for the current belief that
the court will not find it necessary to
consider the principal question raised
but will base it's decision upon some
side issue.
Specific Controversy.
The specific controversy in the case
at bar is over the validity of the
action of the freeholders in appropri-
ating money for the bridge across the
Raritan bay at Perth Amboy, under
authority of an act intended to val
idate such appropriation and which
act was signed after the adjournment
of the legislature. Mr.. Fleming, In
expressing his views on the right to
signs bills, said:
II have never been able to see any
good reason why such approval may
not be made at any time before the
next meeting of the legislature. |
know. however, that there has been
a general impression that such ap-
prevail must be had while yet the leg
islature is sitting; and that several
of the states have put a clause in
their constitutions making especial
provisions for approval after adjourn
ment of the Iawmaking body, which
would seem to be inferentially
against the authority of the execu-
tive to sign a bill under such circum-
stances in the absence of a constitu-
tional provision of the kind.
There is one precedent for such
action, which | cannot but consider of
much weight. 1t is found in the fact
that President Lincoln, nine days
after not only the adjournment of
congress, but after that body had
ceased to be, signed an important
measure. That vas on March IL,
1863, and the act is styled Chapter
12O of the public acts of the third
session of the thirty-seventh congress.
While the courts have not been called
upon to pass upon the validity of the
executive action in that instance, the
act has been repeatedly interpreted
by the Supreme Court, when no ques-
ton appears to have been raised as to
the validity OF the act. The cases are
to be found in 9th Wallace, p. Sc;
10th Wallace, p. 80, and 22d Wal
lace. p. 81"
Now that it is believed that the
Supreme Court has eliminated from
the case the question of the COVER
nor's right to sign bills, it is thought
that the court can only decide the
case in one of two ways, either
against Bloomfield, on the ground of
laches, or against the freeholders, on
the ground that the act which per-
mftted them to pay for the bridge is
unconstitutional, as being special
legislation.
Some persons who have taken an
interest in the case are inclined to
think that the latter decision will be
rendered.