« AnteriorContinuar »
ary, and an inspection of the journal of the Council by the committee shows the same fact; the journal of the House of Representatives shows that the Governor returned the bill to that body without his signature, and with his objections, on Wednesday, the 26th of January; between these two days one Sunday intervened, so that (if the legal maxim holds good in this case, that “there is no division of a day," of which the committee have no doubt,) four entire days intervened (besides Sunday) between the presentation of the bill to the Governor and the return of it to the House in which it originated. It is hence clear that the bill has become a law, unless the Assembly, by adjournment, has prevented its return; and an inspection of the journals of the two Houses shows that the Assembly has not yet adjourned; it is therefore clear, that the adjournment of the Assembly has not prevented the return of the bill to the House in which it originated within the time limited by law.
The committee, cannot, for these reasons, resist the conclusion that the bill has become the law of the land. It may be urged, against the conclusion to which the committee have arrived, that if correct, it would render the power of the Governor to disapprove of the acts passed by the Legislative Assembly, entirely nugatory, as, after a bill had passed both Houses, the House in which it originated might adjourn for three days, and thus prevent its return—although the Assembly had not adjourned at all; this objection the committee think invalid, the act of Congress is too plain, and its import and meaning too apparent, to be affected by any supposed effect it may have upon the veto power of the Governor. The act of Congress appears to have been copied from the seventh section of the first article of the constitution of the United States, as the provisions of the law are identical with those contained in this article of the constitution, except that the word “Council ” has been substituted for “Senate," “ Governor” for “ President of the United States,” “Assembly" for “Congress”-the addition of the words of the territories of Iowa and Wisconsin,” so as to give it effect in those territories, and a reduction of the time within which a bill must be returned, from ten to three days; this seems to have been done without sufficiently reflecting that at the time the Houses of the Legislative Assembly of the
Territory had no such restraint imposed upon them by law, as to the time one House might adjourn without the consent of the other, as is imposed on the two Houses of Congress in the fifth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States. The law of Congress, in the absence of any limitation, on the power of one House to adjourn without the consent of the other, is manifestly not adapted to our condition, (unless indeed it be wise to do away with the veto of the Governor altogether,) but must nevertheless, while it is in force, be regarded, and receive the same construction as would the provision in the Constitution of the United States above alluded to.
The committee have taken no notice of a communication of the Governor, in which he states that he returned the bill to the House on the 25th of January, after it had adjourned; as, if the views they have taken of the subject are correct, it needs no consideration; for, as before stated, even if he was prevented by the adjournment of the House of Representatives from sending it to that body, the Assembly had not adjourned, but is still in session.
They will remark, however, that even if the law of Congress was different—if that law, instead of providing that the bill should not be a law if the Governor was prevented from returning the bill by the adjournment of the Assembly, had provided that it should not be a law in case he was prevented from returning it by the adjournment of the Ilouse in which it originated—the bill in question would still have become a law, for the reason that the House of Representatives (the House in which the bill originated) held regular sessions every day from Friday, the 21st of January, to Wednesday, the 26th of the same month, except the Sunday which intervened, and that he would not have been prevented by the adjournment of the House from returning the bill within the time required by law. The committee are of opinion 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; any other construction would compel the House in which a bill has originated, to hold its session, on the third day after the presentation of the bill to the Governor, till 12 o'clock at night, or else, by its adjournment, prevent the return of the bill within three days.
Although the committee are of opinion that the bill in question is, beyond all doubt, the law of the land, they would nevertheless, recommend that it be considered by the House, and if passed by this body by the requisite majority, that it be sent to the Council. They advise this course for the reason, that if it shall pass both Houses by majorities of two-thirds, the public will perhaps have more confidene in the charter, and take more readily the stock of the company. All which is respectfully submitted.
E. V. WHITON, Chairman.
In Council, Saturday, January 22. 1842. Mr. Learned, from the committee on Enrollment, reported that the committee did, on yesterday, present to the Governor an act and resolution, as follows:
“An act to incorporate the Janesville Bridge Company;" and
“Resolution requesting the Legislature of the State of New York to abolish the canal tolls on pig and bar lead." A true extract from the Journal.
GEO. BEATTY, Secretary. On motion of Mr. Barber, Ordered, That the said report do lie on the table.
Mr. Shepard from the select committee to which was referred bill No. 3,(C. F.) entitled “a bill to repeal an act entitled an act concerning the lien of Mechanics and others, for the cost of repairs and improvements on real estate,” reported the same back to the House with amendments thereto. When the said bill was read the second time.
On motion of Mr. Burt, The House resumed its session in committee of the whole, Mr. Dewey in the chair, for the consideration of bill No. 23, (H. R. file,) entitled “a bill to provide for the construction of a rail-road from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi river, and after some time spent therein the committe rose, and reported the bill with amendments.
Mr. Gray called for a division of the question on agreeing to the amendments.
Mr. Ellis moved that the report of the committee of the whole, do lie on the table and be printed.
Which was determined in the affirmative,
Messrs. Batchelder, Darling, Eastman, Ellis, Giddings, Hackett, Jenkins, La Chappelle, Mills, Ogden, Sutherland, Tripp, Whiton, and Newland, speaker, 14.
Those who voted in the negative are,
Messrs. Barber, Bond, Brazelton, Brown, Burt, Dewey, Gray, Ray, Bockwell, and Shepard, 10.
A message from the Council by their Secretary:
Mr. Speaker-I am directed to inform you that the Council have concurred in the first and third amendments, and have nonconcurred in the second amendment of this House, to bill No. 12, entitled “a bill to amend an act to incorporate the village of Racine,” also to inform you the reference of several petitions from the counties of Iowa, Grant and Crawford for the organization of a new county to be composed of parts of the said counties, has been made by the Council, in accordance with the request of this House.
Mr. Hackett from the committee on Enrolled Bills report “Memorial to Congress for the construction of a Harbor at Milwaukee,” to be correctly enrolled.
Which was signed by the Speaker, and ordered to be presented to the President of the Council for his signature.
The House took up for consideration the messages from the Council, when the undermentioned bills were read the first and second tines, to wit:
No. 13, “ A bill to authorize Hiram Weld to establish a ferry across the Grant and Mississippi rivers.”
No. 25, “A bill declaratory of an act entitled an act prescribing the terms of office of certain county officers, and for other purposes.”
Bill No. 20, (H. of R. file,) entitled "A bill to authorize Oliver C. Hubbard to build a dam on the Manitouwoc river" returned from the Council with amendments thereto, and the question being on concurring in the said amendments, and a division called for, the ques
tion was taken separately on each amendment, when the first amendment was concurred in.
The question then recurred on concurring in the second amendment, and being put, it was determined in the affirmative.
And the ayes and noes being called for,
Messrs. Bond, Brazelton, Brown, Burt, Darling, Dewey, Eastman, Giddings, Gray, Hackett, Mills, Ogden, Shepard, Tripp, and Whiton, 15.
Those who voted in the negative, are,
Messrs. Ellis, Jenkins, La Chappelle, Ray, Rockwell, and Newland, speaker, 6.
On the question of concurring in the third amendment.
Messrs. Batchelder, Bond, Brazelton, Brown, Burt, Dewey, Eastman, Giddings, Gray, Hackett, Mills, Shepard, Sutherland, and Tripp, 14.
Those who voted in the negative, are,
Messrs. Darling, Ellis, Jenkins, La Chappelle, Ogden, Ray, Rockwell, Whiton, and Newland, Speaker, 9.
So the third amendment was concurred in.
The second amendment of this House to bill No. 12, (C. F.) enti-
On motion of Mr. Burt, The House resolved itself into the committee of the whole House, Mr. Brown in the chair; for the consideration of bill No. 13, (C. F.) entitled “ a bill to authorize Hiram Weld to establish a ferry across the Grant and Mississippi rivers;” and
After some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported the bill with an amendment.