The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-04-01

Chief Justice Horton and Chief Justice
Johnston. In his brief Mr.. Dawson
makes the following admissions:
I'VE are quite willing to admit that
the modern authorities based upon
statutory construction and rules of in
depreciation prescribed by the legisla-
ture incline to the doctrine that in the
computation of time the first day is to
be excluded and the last day included,
but there is lack of clearness and
logical distinction existing in these
cases, while the Kansas decisions cited
above, as well as those of the supreme
court of the United States, incline to
the older and more logical rule, for
which we contend. Certainly it can
not be commended that any rule OF
statutory construction prescribed by
the legislature will affect the construc-
ton of the constitution. To hold other
wise would be to say that it is possible
for the legislature by a simple statu-
tory act to amend, modify or alter the
clear and succinct propositions of the
constitution.
Upon another view the inheritance
tax bill is undoubtedly valid act Tne
| bill was presented to the governor
originally on March 9, as shown by the
pleadings. On that day the governor
sent message to the house of repre-
| sentatives, saying: I do not want 10
veto this bill, but I want to make II
more equitable and just Pursuant to
l
request for the recall of house bill No.
SIS, and on the following day, March
10, it was returned by the house TO
| the governor. 1t is absolutely clear
that this action of the governors ana
the recall of the bill by the house OF
! representatives and the return of the
bill to the governor were of no legal
effect, ror did said acts in any way
| impair the validity of the bill There
is only one thing that can be done 10
Il - lnCrI -I a.
ture, and that is to submit it to the
ernor, and the governor can
approve it or disapprove it. and
there is nothing else he can &c
to it. His message to the house con-
corning it has no more legal enecl
than a communication from any other
state officer or petition or memorial by
private citizens would have. and the
physical act of the house of represen-
tatives in recalling that bill and the
compliance with that request are like
wise of no effect.
"C4overnor Stubs message to the
house on March 9 saying. L don't wan,
to veto this BILL is immaterial excep'
that it does show that he was consld-
ering the bill pursuant to its presenta-
ton on that day, and did not want te
veto it; and thus the governor did con-
slider the bill on Thursday, Friday
Saturday and Monday, and vetoed II OF
Tuesday Clearly the veto was not Ell
fectiveIy lodged against the bill within
three days. Certainly he did consloel
tha hill on March and wrote to the
house concerning it, and it follows tina
so far as house bill No. GIG, relating t.
the inheritance law, is concerned, l
makes no difference whether thl
court continues the method of comput
ing time which it has upheld througI
the long wears which have passed
since the New Hampshire doctrine wa!
first adopted by this court; or whether
lit shall at this late day cross over u
the other side and adopt a new doc
trine. The inheritance tax act is
. valid act of the Kansas legislature ant
needs only a writ of mandamus requlr
ling the secretary of state to print 1
to be in full force and effect"