New Britain herald., 1929-07-26
Supreme Court Decision MCook Case Endaes 493 Laus Signed Illegally


 best thought to matter of this char acter. If the conclusion reached could not avoid these disastrous con- sequences it would but declare the voice of the law, although it would have no part in the responsibility or having aided in the creation ot the situation which it would deeply de- plore.
 We turn now from a discussion ot the claims of the State to discus sion of those of the defendants. On one point the parties agree, that every bill must be signed by the Gov ernor before it becomes law. This constitutional provision was un- doubtedly drafted from the similar provision found in Section ' of Artl- cle First of the Constitution of the United States.
 The Characteristic difference in the two provisions are in the period provided for the return of bills, ten days in the Federal Constitution against three in the State Constitu- tion, and in the provision requiring in the Federal Constitution twothirds of each house to pass a bill which the President has returned for re- consideration, while our State Con- stitution requires a majority only to pass a bill over the Governors veto.
 Lack Federal Decision
 There is no federal decision of the United States Supreme Court upon the precise point we are considering. It has been held that an Act of Congress presented to the President while Congress was sitting and signed by him when Congress was in recess for specified time, but with in ten days, Sundays excepted, after it was so presented to him, imme- diately upon it's signing became a law. Laabra Silver Mining Company V. United States, 175 U. s. 423. It was also held in Okanagan Indian Tribe ct al V. United States, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States May 27, 1929. that an interim adjournment of Congress having been taken at the end of the first session, as a result of which, al thouoh the legislative existence of the House in which the bill originated has not been terminated, prevents the President from returning it to such House, and that in consequence the bill did not become law. It was also held that the same rule would apply in the case of a final adjourn ment.
 Only one President, so far as we are informed, has signed bills after the adjournment of Congress but within ten days after the return of the bills to him. President Wilson did this on the advice of the Attor- ney-General. His innovation is ap- proved of in an article in 90 Yale Law Journal, page 1, entitled "The Power of the President to Sign Bills after Congress Has Adjourned" by Professor Linsley Rogers.
 The practical construction placed upon the federal constitution corre- spends with that which was ac- cepted and followed unquestioned, as to our related constitutional provi- sion, certainly up to 1919. In view of the language of Okanagan Indian Tribe ct al V. United States, surpa, it may well be questioned whether the Supreme Court of the United States will give it's approval to the practice inaugurated by President Wilson. However, it cannot, we think, be doubted that it will not construe this section of the Federal Constitution so that it may grant to the President the power to sign bills more than ten days after the final adjournment of the Congress.
 Other State Constitutions
 The provisions of the constitutions of three of the states are so similar to the provision of our own constitu- ton under consideration as to make decisions hereunder of pertinent applicability. In Illinois the provi. sion is as follows: "Unlec5 the Gen. eral Assembly shall by their ad- journment prevent it's return, 1T which case the said bill shall be re. turned on the first day of the meet, ing of the General Assembly after the expiration of said 10 days, or be a law.' In Seven Hickory vs. Ellery | 103 U. s. 423, bill was returned tc the Governor and signed by hin after the legislature had adjourned but within 10 days after it's return to him. "The single question we have now to consider is whether { bill passed by both Houses, and pre- sented to the Governor before thu legislature adjourns, becomes a law when signed by the Governor after the session of the legislature has been terminated by an adjournment but within 10 days from its presen tation to him. We have no hesitation ir saying it does. There is certainly no express provision in the Constitu tion to the contrary. All that lis, ,ru ment requires is that, before any bill, which has passed the two Houses, can become law, it shal be presented to the Governor.
 If he approves it, he may sign i within the time, the bill becomes : law. That is not said in so many words, but is manifestly implied After a bill has been signed, tn, legislature has nothing more to dt with it." The provision in the New Y ork constitution adopted in 1922 followed in its related provision il substance the latter part of the Ian guage in our section ' of Articl Fourth-''in which case it shall be law unless returned on the first da. of their next meeting"
 In his opinion in People " Bowel 21, N. Y. SIT, Judge Denio wrote, '' think that he (the Governor) woul not be justified in acting upon a bil after ten days had elapsed whethe the session continued or not. "I Solomon vs. Commissioners of Car tersville, fl, Ga, 157, it was held tha bill signed by the Governor tw months after the adjournment of tn legislature did not become law. Tn language, "Unless the General As