The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1921-04-09
Mandamus Case of Gov.
Hartness vs.. Secretary
Black Presented
JUSTICE TAYLOR
GIVEN THE CASE
On Decision Rests Question
Of Special Session of
Legislature

Following a hearing in Vermont SUI
preme court at Montpelier yesterday
afternoon, the mandamus case Of Gov
James Hartness against Secretary of
State Harry A. Black to require promul-
cation of the acts recently passed by
the legislature and signed by the gov
ernor is with Justice w H Taylor for
preparation of an opinion. After the
hearing, the court adjourned without
day so that the opinion will very like
" be filed with the clerk of the court.
On the decision will rest the question
whether or not the legislature will have
to be called together in special session
to re e-enact bills, which we're signed by
Governor Hartness after the adjourn
ment of legislature, The secretary of
state alleges this was contrary to the
constitution.
Arguments in the "lse were present
ed by Hale X. Darling and Wade keyes
for the petitioner and by John NJ.
Avery and G. L. Hunt for the petit
tionee The secretary of state took his
position from the following sentence in
section II of the Vermont constitution:
'If any bill shall not be returned by
the governor, as aforesaid, within five
days tSunday excepted after it shall
have been presented to him, the same
shall become law in like manner a.
if he had signed il; unless the two
houses by their adjournment, within
three DAYS after the presentation Of
such bill shall prevent it's return in
which case it shall not become a law
The petitioner relied on another part
of the same section of the constitution
which saws every bill which shall
have passed the Senate and House Of
Representatives shall. before it be-
comes law, be presented 70 the gov
ernor; If he approves, he shall sign it,;
If not. he shall return il, with his oh
iections in writing, 10 the house in
which it shall have originated; which
shall proceed to reconsider it.
Opening the ease for the petitioner,
Attorney Darling stated the case and
how II came about. He also referred
to the provisions for prnmuigation Of
the acts and he told Of the number Of
bills coming 10 Governor Hartness and
the dates Of doliveryt He reviewed the
history of legislation as provided by
the constitution and told how there
was no veto power for the governor
until 1896.
Then Attorney Darling spoke Of the
inconsistency Of anyone expecting that
with more than so bills before him the
governor could review them and sign
them in the last "a hours Of a session.
He quoted state and federal decisions
tending to show there is no time limit
for signing in a majority of the cases.
One case in Maryland was referred to
in particular where il had been held
the the bills. il properly passed. could
he taken 10 the governor after final
adjournment,
Attorney Avery, opening for the pc
titionee. read the second part Of Sec
tion IL of the constitution and said the
constitution does not intend 70 give
the governor absolute power Of veto.
that the constitution Is one Of checks
and balances, so that in the last three
dsys of the session the governor Is not
held responsible for the validity Of the
acts but the legislature may have a
chance to act on the veto. lie urged
the court not 70 disturb a practice
which has prevailed for 100 years ex-
cepting il 1917 when FIVE bills were
signed. He argued that the legislature
has not finished its work until the bills
have been signed or vetoed He de
clared that If the bills which reach
the governor late in the session. can
bc effective il signed within five DAYS
then thew NAV be signed AT any time
during his gubernatorial term
Closing the argument for the petit
tionee Attorney G. J.. Hunt said he
had divided the bills signed by Gov.
Hartness into two classes: on all bills
presented within three days OF final ad
ionrnment, and ~ those presented
after adjournment. He claimed the pop
ular idea of 4 pocket veto does not ex-
Isl under the constitution. lie sad
the constitution intends that all blils
shall 90 10 the governor before ad-
iournment Of the legislature and that
The clerks have no authority TO present
them after adjournment.
Attorney Wade Keyes closed the ar
rument for the petitioner, attacking
the points raised by the petitionee ana
saving there is no argument why
hin should not be sent 20 the gov
erpor after adjournment aud cited a
one -dav session when il was not possi-
ble 20 get the hills to the governor
within the time allotted. lie said the
wealth Of authority for signature q
bills after adjournment j with the pc
, tionee.
An opinion on the case i expected
/ ~ be returned within n short time
cum ARR STPYcHNINF