Shoshone journal. [volume] (Shoshone, Idaho) 1884-1931, 1911-03-03
GOVERNOR GIVES
REASON FOR VETO
CLEARLY SHOWS THE iNEii LL-
TINENESS AND MUS
TICE OF MEAol RE

That house bill No. 2Jj " Da> Is,
compelling the remONal vi signs and
other advertising matter Whlcn
might serve To aul cruise the saiOOn
business from buildings wIIicn were
formerly useu as saloons ana are
now in ury' terrl1Ory, woulu not
be effective and that it only ef-
iects the owner OI the DulIulng,
was the opinion OF tne governor
"Wednesday. He set forth reasons
Tor the veto of the bill, and after
il had been read, the authors secni-
ed 10 agree with aim, as > veto
was sustained by vote OF 80 to
he stated ,nat if the legislature
deems =, advisable to pass idW
OF this kind, the party III possession
OF The BUILDING, as tenant Or a
lessee, should be the one made
sullty of the crime committed.
The message in part follows:
BY the provisions of the DnI the
really guilty party is held harmless
anu not guilty Of the crime at all,
while the owner of the Dundlng,
whether such owner be d home Of
foreign corporation, company, firm
or inulViuual. Is made guitN. Many
OF the persons and corporations
owning buildings in tnis state leas-
ed for term of years or OF months
do mol reside witnin the state, and
still. under the provisions of this
proposed law, sucn a person or cor
poration is gullty of a crime II an
objectionable sign is maintained IN
or about such builuing by the ten
and over whose actions they have
no control. and such person or cor
poration is made guilty of the ERIN
of maintaining sucn signs while
the really guilty party goes harm
less. Not only that but every day
that the sign is maintained IS a
new and distinct oiIense. and, un-I
der the terms Of tnfs bill. such
owner could be convicted of a hun
dred otfenses in regard to a matter
over which he had no control and
of which he had no knowledge,
while the responsible parties could
not be held liable. Great hardship!
could easily be worked upon an
especially if the tenant or lessee
desired to harrass such owner.
Leaving out the above matters.
which / think you will agree with
me are fatal, and which undoubt-
edly escaped your notice when the
bill passed your honorable body, |
believe the bill in question should
not become a law even if 1t provld-
ed for the punishment of the
guilty party. because 1t would un-
dolfbledly. in prohibition territory.
.cause TO be destroyed evidence OF
great value to the prosecuting al
fornev in case of violation fo the
liquor traffic. Any old prosecutor
ran see readily that sign of that
kind mentioned in the bill mani
tanned on or i'll buildings where
il was charged defendant was un-
lawfully selling liquor would oil
itself and in itself be the strongest
Kind of proof of guilt. | think you
Will agree with me that in many
gases i would make a conviction
possible where otherwise the pro-
sccution could not he maintained.
The policy of prosecuting cor
poralion. association Or firm forl
an offense of this kind is doubtful
and doubt whether the bill in this
RESPECT would be effective Other
reasons suggest themselves to me
why this kind of legislation should
moi be favorable considered. but |
believe that have instanced
enough reasons to satisfy you as tol
the correctness Of my conclusions.
ANNOUNCEMENT