« AnteriorContinuar »
Which was agreed to.
Mr. Ray moved to strike out the words, “Hiram Weld,” and insert in lieu thereof the words, “ the corporation of the town of Potosi.”
And pending that motion the bill was ordered to lie on the table.
Resolution No. 3, (H. of R. file,) entitled “ Resolution relative to adjournment,” was taken up for consideration.
Mr. Gray, by leave, withdrew the amendment offered by him on a previous day.
When Mr. Barber moved to strike out the “17th,” and insert in lieu thereof the 18th; which was agreed to.
Ordered, That the said resolution be engrossed for the third read
Mr. Ellis from the committee to which the subject was referred, made the following report:
Which was adopted, to wit:
The committee of conference to whom was referred the disagreeing vote of the two houses, on bill No. 17, (C. F.) entitled “a bill for the relief of Portage county, report:
That they recommend to the House to recede from their amendment to said bill—and further, to strike out the word “first” where it occurs in the first and second sections of the bill and insert the word “ fourth."
Ordered, That the Council be acquainted therewith.
Mr. Barber, by leave, and agreeably to notice given, introduced bill No. 38, entitled “a bill to authorize the construction of a dam across the Crawfish river." Which was read the first and second times.
The undermentioned accounts were presented and referred to the committee on public expenditures, to wit:
By Mr. Gray—The account of Alonzo Platt, for furnishing newspapers to the members of the Assembly.
By Mr. Darling—The account of Thomas Daily, for services rendered the Assembly at the present session.
By Mr. Whiton—The account of Gideon Chapin, for making sheet iron doors to stoves.
A message from the Governor by his private Secretary:
“Mr. Speaker-I am directed by his Excellency the Governor, to inform this House that he has on this day approved • an act to organize certain towns in the county of Racine.?
Bill No. 1. entitled “A bill to amend an act of the Revised Statutes entitled an act concerning the writ of attachment,” was taken up and considered, and the amendment of the Council to the amendment of the House having been read,
The question was taken on concurring in the said amendment, and was determined in the negative.
So the house refused to concur in the said amendment. Ordered, That the Conncil be acquainted therewith. Mr. Brown gave notice that he should on a future day, by leave, introduce a bill to establish a ferry within the military reservation at Fort Snelling.
And then the House adjourned.
Tuesday, February 8, 1842. The Speaker laid before the House the petition of cttizens of the counties of Grant, Iowa, and Crawford, praying the organization of a new county on the north side of the Wisconsin river, to be attached to Iowa for judicial purposes;
Which was referred to the same committee to which sundry petitions were heretofore referred, to wit: the delegations of Grant, Iowa, Crawford, and St. Croix.
Mr. Burt presented the petition of citizens of Grant county, praying the incorporation of a railroad company for the purpose of constructing a railroad from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi river;
Which was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Rockwell, from the committee on Engrossed bills, reported resolution No. 3, entitled “ Resolution relative to adjournment" to be correctly engrossed.
Mr. Whiton, from the committee on the Judiciary to which was referred several petitions on the subject reported bill No. 39, entitled
“A bill to organize the county of Fond du Lac for judicial purposes and to organize the county of Calumet;"
Which was read the first and second times.
Mr. Barber, from the minority of the judicial committee, by leave, submitted the following report:
The undersigned, a minority of the committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the message of his Excellency, the Governor, containing his objections to a bill which originated in this House, entitled “ A bill to incorporate the Janesville Bridge Company,” report:
That while they fully concur in the views of the majority of the committee, and regret that they are compelled to differ in opinion with his Excellency, as to the expediency or necessity of his disapproval to said bill, as it passed the two Houses of the Legislative Assembly, they cannot concur in the opinion of the majority of the committee, that “the bill has become a law of the land”—the disapproval of the Governor to the contrary, notwithstanding.
By the law of Congress conferring this power upon the Governor, it is provided that "if any bill shall not be returned by the Governor within three days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Assembly, by adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.”
By a reference to the journal of this House, it appears from a communication from John Catlin, chief clerk thereof, that on the third day (Sunday excepted) after this bill was presented to the Governor for his approval, it was returned by the Governor, and put into the hands of the chief clerk of the House, “a short time after the adjournment, and before 12 o'clock, M.”
A message was received from the Governor, stating the same fact.
The undersigned do not assent to the “ opinion of the majority of the committee that the term “day," as used in the law of Congress, means the time which is occupied in the transaction of business on each day;" for, if this construction be adopted, it would be in the power of either House to deprive the Governor of the exercise of the veto power at any time, by a simple adjournment for three days-or by adopting a rule or resolution that they will receive no communication from any source during a like period.
The very phraseology of the law of Congress, warrants us in the construction which we put upon it, that the Governor is allowed three full days to consider of any bill which may be presented to him for his approval.
It will not be contended that the bill could not be returned in consequence of an adjournment of the Assembly: no such adjournment has taken place. This is admitted by the majority of the committee. And if no such adjournment has taken place, then the session has been continuous; and we cannot avoid the conclusion that a return of any paper or any act required to be made within a given number of days, may be made at any time, during the period limited, whether the House be in the actual transaction of business or not. It would be absurd to suppose that either House could at will, shorten the time fixed by Congress, in the act above referred to; or that it could by any arbitrary rule, prevent its taking effect, because it is not “communicated to the chair by the person by whom it may be sent.”
But if the House is not in the actual transaction of business, will it be contended that a return cannot be made to it through its officers?
The clerk is a permanent officer of the House, and it is made his duty by law to keep “all records, accounts, and other papers committed to him.” By a law of the last session of the Legislature, it is made the duty of the clerks of the several Boards of county commissioners, to make return of the votes given for and against the adoption of the new town and county system, on the first day of December. Suppose the Legislative Assembly should not organize on thạt day, and that in consequence thereof, the returns of the several clerks should not be received by either House, can any one believe that such want of organization would vitiate such returns? The law requires that all process issuing out of the District Courts shall be made returnable on the first day of the next succeeding term. Suppose the Judge should not appear and organize the court on that day, could not the Sheriff make due return of process, for want of such organization?
The undersigned believe that the law allows three full days to the
Governor, to make return of bills which do not receive his approval. By the endorsement of the Governor on the bill returned, it appears that it was presented to him on the 21st, at noon. By the communication of the Clerk of the House, it appears that it was placed in his hands before 12 o'clock, on the 25th day of January. A Sunday intervened. It is therefore manifest that (Sunday excepted,) the bill was not in the hands of the Governor, during three entire days, the time allowed by law.
The undersigned, therefore, are forced to concur with the majority of the committee, in recommending "that it be considered by the House, and if passed by this body, by the requisite majority, that it be sent to the Council.” And they advise to this course for the reason given by the majority of the committee, viz: “ That if it shall pass both Houses by majorities of two-thirds, the public will perhaps have more confidence in its charter”—and also for the further reason that unless it is so passed, it will not be the law of the land—and also for a still further and better reason, that the law of Congress requires that this course be taken. Respectfully submitted. L. I. BARBER,
A. G. ELLIS. The said report was read, and,
On motion of Mr. Whiton, it was Ordered, That two hundred copies of the said report, and the like number of the majority report be printed.
Mr. Hackett from the committee on Enrolled bills, reported that on yesterday they presented to the Governor for his approval the following bills, to wit:
“An act to revise and amend an act to incorporate the Western Fire Insurance Company at Prairie du Chien, and the Howard Fire Insurance Company of Brown County."
“An act to organize certain towns in the county of Racine.” “An act to incorporate the Fond du Lac Company."
“Memorial to Congress for the construction of a harbor at Milwaukee."
Mr. Darling from the committee on Corporations, to which a petition on the subject was referred, reported bill No. 40, entitled “a bill to incorporate the Beloit and Rock River Bridge Company."