The Sentinel=record., 1915-04-09

his pen through the prefix dis and
 gave it to Mr. Stewart to report. Even though he had not done this when he gave it to Mir. Stewart to re-
 port, it was a law when he signed it.
 But, Mir. Stewart returned to the of flee and gave the bill to the gov ernor, who says he wanted to take it home and reconsider it. He had no right to reconsider the bill. for iii doing so he would be vetoing a bill tbat had become an act and up to the present the supreme court has not given the governor the right to veto an act. The law is not to enact such schemes as transpired in Governor Hays office. If he wants to mgele with the constitution. that is his af- fair, and he must face the circum- stances"
 w. H. Martin, assisting Senator Clarke, had cited the case of Rose in the Eighty-third Arkansas, when dur ing the illness of Governor Little, John l. Moore, who had been named governor, had signed and approved bill and on the following day, x. o. Pindall had been named governor and had vetoed the measure. The supreme court ruled in this case that the blu was a law because Governor Moore had signed it and the question Of in- tention was not considered
 Discussing this case Senator Clarke said that Governor Moore made the bill a law when he signed it. because he had sent no veto message with it when if was returned to the house.
 In answer to numerous citations of authorities out of the state of Arkan- sas, by attorneys for the state. Sena- tor Clarke declared that the rulings in none of these cases conficted with the decision in the Rose case. The entire question was based upon the constitution. which only required that the governor affix his signature U d bill to make it a law.
 Name on Bill.
 Governor Hays at all times las said that he did not sign the bill and had no intention of signing it. When he says signing the bill he means that he had no intention of approy- ing the bill While Governor Hays had led several Of his friends 10 be- lieye that he intended to approve the bill, that has nothing to do with the case. Whether in his heart he ia. yored the bill does not affect the re- suits. If he wanted to cad them to believe that he would favor the bin for purposes known only to hmself| that is an affair of his own. If he wanted to practice deception of. that kind on his friends it is of no importance in the case. He had the right to do as he pleased. but he did not have the right to affix his sigma ture to the bill, for in doing so ne declared it law.
 As to the scenes that were enact. ed in the governors office when his friends supposed he mad signed the bill, they were better told by Castain Rice than l could relate them That he accepted the congratulations Of those gentlemen who were in the of. flee and believed that he had signed their measure is not a matter of vital testimony in the case. The only vi. tai testimony is the bill itself which bears his signature Governor Hays says that while he did accept these congratulations he at no time told these gentlemen that he had aDprOy. ed the measures What if he did not? The constitution does not require that he should say whether he approv- ed or disapproved the bill He is un- der no obligation 10 tell what he feels in his heart The constitution is not concerned with what is in a gover- nOr's heart when a bill is sent to him for his signature. All that it says Is that the law should bear his sigma ture
 The constitution does not say that he must write anything on a bill oth- CT than his signature. If ne does sign the bill 1t is proof that he has ap- proved the bill. TO disapprove tho bill he must send his veto message with the bill when it goes to the house Governor Hays says that he did send his veto message with the bill and that is not denied But when did he send this message? He sent it after he had signed the bill, given 1t to his secretary to report, which took it out Of his power then recon sdesed the bill which he had no right to do. According to this copy of the bill, the governor has approved, dis approved and then approved the bin. The defense contends that the bill now is a record and as such reads 'disapproved 1t is unimportant whether the bill reads as approved or disapproyed. What is written on that line is not mentioned in the consti- tuition. That line could have been left vacant and as long as the goyes nor's name was signed to the bill it was a law"
 Contentious Constitutional.