New Britain herald., 1929-07-26

granting the relief prayed for.
 As to the Signature
 There remains the, constitutional question raised by the defendants demurrer to the compl int and re- newed in their answer, that the Act is void because not approved by the Ccverlor until nineteen days after the final adjournment of the Gener- al Assembly. The provision of the constitution which defendants urge vas violated by the approval of this Act more than three days after the final adjournment of the General Assembly is Section 12 of Article fourth, which reads: Every bill which shall have passed both houses of the General Assembly, shall be presented to the Governor. If he ap- proves, he shall sign and transmit it to the Secretary, but if not, he shall return it to the House in which it originated, with his objec- tions, which shall be entered on the journals of the house; who shall pro- ceed to reconsider the bill. If after such reconsideration, that house shall again pass it, it shall be sent with objections, to the other house, which shall also reconsider it. If ap- proved, it shall become law.
 "But in such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays; and the names of the members voting for and against the bill, shall be entered on the journals of each house respectively. If the bill shall not be returned by the Governor within three days, Sundays excepted, after it shall have hcen presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it; unless the General Assembly, by their adjournment, prevents it's return, in which case it shall not be law"
 It must be conceded that the con- struction of the last six times of this section present a difficult problem. The State insists that the practical construction accorded this language by all of the Governors since 1919 in signing both public and special Acts more than three days after the final adjournment is strongly indicative that this course was the correct one.
 It is true that. Long settled and established practice is a considera- tion of great weight in a proper in depreciation of constitutional provi- sions of the character" Okanagen Indian Tribe ct al vs United States, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States May 27, 1929. While such practice is not binding on this court it is, we cay in State vs. South Norwalk TT Conn. 257, 264, "cntitled to great regard Tn determining the true construction of a constitutional provision the phrase ology of which is in any respect of doubtful meaning" In this instance this consideration claimed in behalf of the State is not applicable since the period of the practice relied upon has been only since 1919,-a far too short period upon which to predicate g settled and established practice. Especially is this true m the light of the fact that from 1877 to 1919 all public acts were signed by the Governor within three days of the final adjournment, except in the year 1882, when four were signed by the Governor more than three days after the final adjourn ment, while all Special Acts from 1877 to 1919 were signed prior to the expiration of the three days fol- lowing the final adjournment, except four in 1883, one in 1909 ~-- five in 1913, ten in all of this period.
 Precedent Was Set
 Forty-two years was g sufficient time for the growth of that long and established practice which en- titles it to great regard in deter mining the construction of the con- stitutional provision before us. The State advances two other considera- tlons in support of it's contention that the Governor has the power to sign bill after the expiration of the : three day period. Its representatives asserts that, "this section of the con- l stitution simply provides in effect that no bill shall become a law un- less signed by the Governor, except that when the General Assembly IS ! in session a bill shall not become a :, law without the Governors sigma ture if he fails to return it to the : General Assembly within three days after its presentment to him." The State relies upon the fact that there , is nothing in this constitutional pro, . vision which provides that after the = expiration of the three-day period following the final adjournment O. F the General Assembly bills returned
 to the Governor shall not become 6 Q law if approved by him.
 S This construction, the attorney fol the State frankly avows in argument :, and brief, necessarily leads to the r conclusion that there is no specified ? time in which the Governor must n sign these bills in order to make then t laws. That is, he may sign the bil r at any time prior to the beginning of the session of the next Genera l. Assembly. If he can sign the bill or the last secular day preceding the e next General Assembly he can or
 that day sign all bills returned tc
 him on the final adjournment of the I General Assembly. That situation '. would be intolerabe Y. .. "it is of the q first importance that the people Q should know to what law they are e subject" . State V. South Norwalk n IT Conn. 257.
 l. Threatens to Void Many Acts l. No instance has been presented tC | us, and we find none, where the ap I proval of laws is made subject as tt - the time of approval, to the ultimate o discretion of a Governor. No consti e tuition of any of our states commit. '- to the unlimited discretion of tho
 Governor such a determination. Un .- der a constitutional government tn, y law of the land can never be depen l. dent upon the unrestricted discretion a of any official, be the office he hold