The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-04-01
POINTS TO THELAW
Attorney General Dawson Cites
Important Decision.
Supports His Contention About
Governors Veto.
A QUESTION OF TIME.
1t Is Whether March 8 Should
Be Included.
Saws Our Own Court Has De-
cided 1t.
A QUESTION OF TIME.

The Kansas supreme court will have
to reverse three former decisions, writ
ten by Justices Horton, Brewer and
Johnston in order to hold that the in
heritance tax bill veto is valid. This is
the contention of Jno. S. Dawson, attor-
ney general in his brief fled in the SUI
preme court today in the two suits
brought against the secretary OF state
to compel the publication OF the SIX
bills in the statute book, thus making
them laws. The attorney general ad-
nits that there are other court decis-
ions in other states against him but
the Kansas decisions are In his 1aVor.
The bills involved in the two suits are
the new inheritance tax bill which was
vetoed by the governor and the hVe
bills which were neither signed nor
vetoed by the governor but delivered
by the governor to the secretary or
state when the legislature adjourned.
The attorney general abandoned his
contention concerning the salary act re-
lating to his own department, giving
as his reason therefor that he wished
to avoid a lawsuit on any subject which
could be construed as one in winch
he had a personal interest. There is,
however a more doubtful question in
Volved in that bill than there is In the
inheritance tax act.
The decision of the supreme court
will be based wholly upon propositions
of law as none of the fact are in dis
pute. Most of Attorney General Daw-
sons brief is devoted to the legality or
the inheritance tax bill which was pre-
sented to the governor on March y ana
vetoed by the governor on March IA.
On March 8 the governor sent mes
sage to the legislature commenting
upon section of the new act and sug-
costing that if the new act was to for
give the outstanding debts from estates
which had not yet been paid under
the old law that the estates OF those
who had paid should be reimbursed and
added, IT do not want to veto this bill
but want it made more equitable and
just The attorney general contends
that that day, Thursday, March 81
should be counted as one of the three
days within which the governor has the
right to approve or veto a bill and Mr..
Dawson supports that contention with
decisions from the supreme courts OF
New York and Virginia. The attorney
general also shows by authorities that
the recall Of the bill by the house on
the same day and its return to the
governor on March 10 was a mere act
of courtesy on the part of the governor
and of no legal effect. 1t was again
presented to the governor on Friday
March 10, and the attorney general con-
tends that even if the second preSenta-
ton of the bill to the governor is to be
construed as the presentation which the
constitution requires that the time limit
upon which the governor might act or
the bill expired one day before 1t was
vetoed In his brief the attorney gen.
eral says:
Laying aside for the present it's first
presentation to the governor on March
9, it will be noted that the bill was
presented to his excellency on FRIDAY
March 10, and remained with him
! through that day and Saturday, March
IL. and Monday, March 49, and was
vetoed on Tuesday, March IA.
| According to PLAINTIFFS view of this
question, this veto was directed against
| the bill at least one day too late to be
of any force and effect, and this con-
tention is based upon principle OF
| law that runs through all the books
from the earliest times down to the
present. The rules of computation OF
time as laid down by this court are
simple, clear and consistent. and are
! known to all well-infOrmed lawyers
Where time is to be computed from q
day of date, the day of the date Is
to be excluded, but when time is to be
computed from an act done. the day
upon which the act is done Is TO De IN
Guided. Here we have clear cast
where a computation of time must be
made from an act done. The act done
was the act of presentation of the bill
to the governor and it is to be included
and upon this construction the COVER
nor had Friday, Saturday and MONDAY
upon which to consider the bill ant
give it his sanction or veto, and as h.
did neither within those three days
whatever he might do or fail to d.
1 thereafter could not and did not frus
trate the legislative will as expressed IL
this act
Cites other Decisions.
This is followed by copious citation
from the decisions of other states, in
Guiding the supreme court of tn
United States and the decisions from
the Kansas supreme court concernin
the rules of computations of time, AM
the attorney general says that in or
. der for the court to hold that the vet
was lodged against the bill in time
will be necessary for the suprem
court to disregard former decisions o