The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-04-03
Veto Question as Viewed From
Different Angle.
Sessions and Hunt Have Also
Found Decision.
NEW POINT is MADE.
Claim Return of Inheritance
Tax Law Was a Veto.
Therefore the Time Limit Does
Not Matter.

The arguments in the mandamus
suits brought by the attorney general
to test the validity of the vote of the
inheritance tax law and the five bills
that died when the governor did not
consider them before the legislature
adjourned will be made in the supreme
court tomorrow. The facts regarding
all the bills have been agreed upon and
the only questions involved are mat
ters of law.
John Hunt is the attorney for Charles
Sessions, secretary of state. The brief
was fled in the supreme court today in
answer to the brief of the attorney
general. who argued that all six of the
bills were legal. The brief of the Sec
retary OF state shows a long line of
decisions in support of the action of
the secretary of state in holding that
the bills were dead. Dawson has a lot
OF Kansas decisions and decisions in
other states showing that the bills
really did become laws on the ground
that the day on which the bills were
presented to the governor should be
counted as one of three days in which
he can consider measures passed by
the legislature.
Hunt and Sessions have dug up just
as many decisions that the day of pre-
sentation should not be counted as one
of three days. They have found several
court decisions where almost the same
question as is involved in these cases
were decided and the courts held that
the bills were dead. On this point the
brief says:
IF the court is to subject provisions
of the constitution to strict technical
construction-to the construction to
which it would subject a statute or
contract-if it is to adopt a fixed stand
~ OnT 70 he in6 70
gardless of results, then we say that
the court must adopt the rule which
we are here contending for. 1t must
in computing the three days allowed by
the section of the constitution under
consideration exclude the day on which
the bill was received by the governor.
We say this. for the following reasons:
1.-THE very year that the constitution
was adopted, and only five months be-
fore its adoption, the legislature adopt
ed statute laying down that rule of
computation.
THAT statute was in force when the
constitution was adopted and has ever
since been in force. 1t was undoubt-
edly in the minds of the trainers of
the constitution
THE constitutions which were used
as models for our constitution either
had been given the construction here
contended for or that rule of conStruc-
tion was so well settled that there was
no question but that they would be
given that construction.
THE. early Kansas cases show that
that was the accepted construction in
this state.
THAT is the only construction which
will give the governor the three days
which it was the intention of the con-
stitution that he should have for con-
sideration of bills. If the day on
which the bill is presented to him be
included, then If the bill were present
ed to him at II o'clock p. m. he would
have only two days for consideration.
For all of these reasons we sub
NIT that if a strict technical construc-
ton be given to this clause of the con-
! stitution, it must be the construction
| above contended for.
1.-THE governor is not a lawyer. When
he read in the constitution that he had
| three days in which to consider these
| bills he did not know that because the
! three days ran from a date and not
| from the day of the date, he had only
| two and fraction days, or that be-
| cause the three days ran from the per-
| formance of an act and not from q
| fixed date. that he had only two an6
| a fraction days. The secretary Of state
| is not a lawyer; and when he found
| that the governor had acted within Z:
| hours, he did not know that because