Democratic Sentinel, Volume 7, Number 44, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 November 1883 — FIXED. [ARTICLE]

FIXED.

Judge Elliott Fixes the Responsibility of the Failure of the Appropriation Bill.

[F i ora the Indianupolig Sentinel]

The Evening News of the 21st inst., has the following to say in regard to Judge Elliott’s decision in a matter of supreme importance: “The opinion of Judge Elliott, of the Supreme Court in the case of the Board of Commissioners of Madison County vs. W. B. Burford, delivered yesterday, is of special interest as deciding upon the right of the Governor to sign bills sent him on the last two days of the legislative sessionjudge Elliott decides that Courts are bound to respect as laws the properly authenticated acts of the Legislature filed by the proper officers and received m accordance with law by the Secretary of State and placed in the proper depository. An effect of the decision is that when bills are presented the Governor on the last two days of the legislative session he may sign them if he shall so choose. This decision is particularly important as relating to the failure of the general appropriation bill of the last session. As a prominent lawyer to-day remarked: “The decision will work a great change in legislative practice.”'’ Manifestly the opinion of Judge Elliott settles a question which elicited a large share of discussion and fixes the responsibility just where the Sentinel and the Democratic press of Indiana have placed it from the beginning. The Indianapolis Times of the 22d, discusses the subject &s follows: , —, “The Supreme Court has recently rendered a decision that will greatly modify the legislative .practice in this State. The State Constitution declares that “no bill shall be presented to the Governor within two days next previous to the final adjournment of the General Assembly.” Under this it has always been accepted by the Legislature that they had no power to present a bill to the Governor on the last two days, and, consequently, refrained from|pass ing bills. So general was the understanding that, in case the Legislature contemplated a final adjournment before the expiration of the full term of either a regular or special session, that the day of final adjournment was always fixed by resolution far enough in advance so as not to infringe on the Constitution, This wa s done at the special session of 1875. On the dav of final adjournment at that session a bill was presented to Governoo Hendricks, on which indors ments were made, showing that it was not delivered to him until the last day. Without signing it, or vetoing it, he delivered it next day to the Secretary of State. The Board of Revision, not deeming it to be a law, did not incorporate it in the Revised Statutes. — The Supreme Court holds, inasmuch as it is found in the office of the Secretary of State, signed by the Speaker and President of the Senate, that it is a law, although it appears by the indorsement of the Governor, written on the bill itself, that it was not presented to him until the last day of the session, and that he did not affix his approval and sign the bill. Hereafter the Legislature will continue to pass bills until midnight on the last day. On the last two days it wc uld seem the Governor might waive the Constitutional provision as to such bills as he desired to become laws, and receive them and sign them: and! as to such as he does not 1 wish to approve or disapprove,

The inevitable result of this decision of the Supreme Court is to convict the Republican party for the failure of the appropriation bill. It was the duty of Governor Hanna to have signed the bill, and he had no discretion on the subj ect. It was for Governor Porter to decide whether he wo’d sign the bill, when it came to him. or reject it because it was presented to him within the two days immediately preceding the adjournment of the General Assembly. Governor Hanna could not decide that question for him. If presented within two days of the adjournment of the Legislature the Governor had the right to reject it because it was so presented, but it was in his power to waive the objection and sign it. or file it with the Secretary of State without his signature, and render it a valid law. The statute passed on by the Court in case No. 10,422 was presented to the Governor on the 15th of March. The Legislature adjourned on the 17th of March. - The Governor did not indorse on the bill that it was rejected by him.— He did not sign it, but indorsed on it that it was received on the 15th of March. The Secretary of State indorsed on the bill that it was received by him on the 16th of MarchThe bill was subscribed by the presiding officers of the Senate and House, and the Qourt held it to be a law properly enacted and in full force. The Times, however treats it as a new principle enunciated by the Court. It is not a new principle, but an old principle of law, long established and sustained by our Courts, as shown by the decisions cited by Judge Elliott in his opinion. The case of Evans vs. Brown, in 30 Ind., 514, was decided at the May term, 1869, by- Judgo Frazer, when the Court was composed of J udg es Ray; Elliott, Frazer and Gregory, alll Republicans. ’The case of Bender vs. the State (53 Ind., 254,) was decided by Judge Buskirk at the November term, 1876. These decisions place the responsibility for the failure of the appropriation bill on the Republican party, as it was within the constitutional power of Governor Porter and Lieutenant Governor Hanna to render it a law by their signatures. Governor Hanna undertook to decide that it should not go to Governor Porter for his sanction and that it should not become a law. He thrust it in a pigeon hole and exclaimed. IT IS KILLeD. It was a dangerous exercise of power and if it shall ever grow into a precedent and be recognized and approved as riget, it would be in the power of any Speaker of the House or President of the Senate to defeat any legislation by refusing to sign the bill. It is in keeping with the history of the Republican party. Its record has been a history of rev--1 olution’ and defienc of law and of legal methods to accomplish partisan ends. Where law* was in the way it has been ‘compelled to yield and die under the heel of Republican progress. When Courts, selected for their experience ahd wisdfim to settle difficult problems, have decided against the unconstitutional and revolutionary course of the Republican party, they have become the subject of malignant aspersions by its papers and leaders, Mobs and runs have become a prolific subject lbr criticism, but the seeds of violence 'that seem to grow and fructify have been sown by the crazy hand of Republicanism in the opposition and defiance of law and its vicious traduction of legal tribunals. The party has not even spared its own refuse to accept them, and in this way defeat a bill without a veto.”

Supreme Court of the United States when it has attempted to break away from parry dictation on the civil rights bill and to adhere to the Constitution. The thinking people of this country ought to reflect where Republican leaders and methods are carrying them.