Daily Kennebec journal., 1916-09-30

IllS COAIlL1bSCC ASPSA SSA SAAoS ~-~0
mittee had performed the duty with
which It was charged.
Thereupon the Governor attended by
the Executive Council and heads OF de-
partments came in.
His Excellency, the Governor then
communicated to the convention as fol-
lows:
Gentlemen Of the 77th Legislature:
Under Article s, Part /, Section Is,
of the Constitution. the Governor is
to convene the Legislature
fore you are assembled in accordance
with the call as expressed in the Gov
ernor's proclamation issued. Sept. Is,
1916.
A most extraordinary occasion has
arisen in connection with the revision
OF the statutes as required by law be-
cause no similar condition appertain-
ing to the revision has heretofore ex-
listed.
Formerly on such occasions 1t has
been possible and in fact it has been
the custom to adjourn the Legislature
to day certain and secure the requir-
ed results but seemingly this process
cannot now obtain as the way appears
to be obscrued by the amendment to
Article Of the Constitution of the
State Of Maine establishing a peoples
veto through the optional referendum.
1T seems that in no reasonable man
ner can the revision Of the statutes be
accomplished except in a special ses-
sion
Doubtless 1t would be superfluous to
go into the details of the act estab-
fishing the optional referendum but
some reason should be given to the
citizens Of the State why this special
session is called-at more or less ex-
pense and inconvenience-and why If
allowed to go over to the next Legisla-
ture the matter might entail still
greater expense and confusion.
THE constitutional amendment pro-
vides that no act or joint resolution Of
the Legislature shall take effect until
80 days after the recess Of the Legisla-
emergency clause.
1T seems to be accepted that the recess
of the legislature is the time intervening
between the final adjournment of one
legislature to the time Of convening the
next.
If you had adjourned to this date none
OF the acts or resolves passed at your
regular session would have become effec-
tive until 80 days after the final adjourn
ment except those passed with the emer-
gency clause, consequently the final ad-
journment would not have been accom-
plished In time to have made your appro-
priations available until the closing days
Of the present year.
THE, work attending the revision Of the
statutes is increasing continually and 1t
is doubtful that 1t could be completed at
any time until the middle or last Of the
year succeeding the session Of the legisla-
ture authorizing the revision.
TT does not seem possible that the act
OF final revision of the statutes can be
passed under the emergency clause Of the
referendum act, because 1t appears to be
a repeal Of all the acts and resolves in
the previous revision and a re-enactment
Of practically all of them-and a portion
of them apparently are not allowed in the
exceptions of the emergency clause either
in the repeal or the re-enactment.
Again, II the matter was allowed to go
over to the next legislature the revision
would not be complete without the laws
Of 1917: and also, even without the laws Of
1917. untold confusion would result as the
legislators In attempting to amend laws
would be obliged to refer to the old stat
utees while the new statutes were ready
at hand but not operative until after the
expiration Of the 30 days period and could
not be amended until in force
The effect Of amending the old statute
by the next legislature while the revision
Of the new statutes was pending might
be to create some confusion in the courts
because the old statutes would automati-
cally be repealed by the act of revision
when it became effective and the validity
Of the amendment might be questioned.
These are questions which should be
decided by the courts, to establish direc-
tions for the future.
Possibly it may not be important In
any material sense what the decision may
be so long as It is made clear and SPECIFIC
on a definite basis--but this does not as
sist us in the present instance.
ITO include the 1917 laws would entail
additional and heavy expense in the re-
Of the entire work.
II had hoped that a special session
would not be necessary, but In the present
circumstances it appears to me that by
calling this special session serious COM
plications will be avoided.
"If the work went over to next year the
delay might be serious, and even then
1t might be necessary to have special
session or at least an adjourned meeting.
which would again delay the legislature
of 1917.
1T almost seems to me like an epdless
chain affair." as it does not appear that
there can be any period at which the
statutes can be brought up to date by any
means without special ses-
sion. Perhaps the courts may devise
some means for future guidance-to avoid
the calling of an extra session-which
would save some expense to the State
ut seemed to be we'll understood by the
legislature at It's regular session that the
call would be necessary. and consequently
no further explanation is deemed expe-
dent
primarily the call for this session Is
to complete the revision Of the statutes
otherwise the session would not have been