THE UNIVERSITY
OF ILLINOIS
LIBRARY
305
li-
ve
NOT A PERIODICAL
Return this book on or before the
Latest Date stamped below.
University of Illinois Library
DEC 2 4 1953
-i
496*
j I
5
TL
V-G
The Veto Power of the Governor
of Illinois
NIELS H. DEBEL, Ph.D.
PREFACE
The veto power of the American state governor has long
been neglected by students of political science. There are in
existence several summaries of constitutional provisions. In a
few cases, also, have there been attempts to discuss the historical
growth of the governor's veto power. But these have all con-
cerned themselves with the spread of the veto power among the
states, and have not taken up in any satisfactory manner the
development and strengthening of that power.
The present study is an attempt to investigate not only the
development of the veto power in Illinois but also its actual
operation. It is hoped that others may do the same for other
states. Only then will it be possible to treat the subject gener-
ally and in the manner it deserves.
I wish to express my indebtedness to Professor "W. F. Dodd,
now of the University of Chicago, in consultation with whom
the subject of this study was determined upon, and who has
read the manuscript; to Professor C. W. Alvord, director of the
Illinois Historical Survey, for the use of material collected by
him; to Mrs. Jessie Palmer Weber of Springfield, Illinois, for
the use of the collections of the Illinois State Historical Library ;
to the Hon. Lewis G. Stevenson, secretary of state, for cour-
tesies and aid extended while searching for material in the state
archives. I wish especially to express my appreciation and grati-
tude to Professor John A. Fairlie of the University of Illinois
for the many kind and helpful criticisms made by him during the
course of this investigation.
N. H. DEBEL.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE „ 5
CHAPTER I. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE VETO POWER 11-26
Origin of the veto power n
The veto power in the American colonies 12
Extension of the veto power 13
The attitude of the original states 13
The attitude of the new states 15
Development of the veto power 16
The size of the vote required to override the veto 16
The time allowed the governor for the consideration of
bills 19
The power to veto items in appropriation bills 22
1 Summary 24.
j \
The American theory of the veto power 25
CHAPTER II. THE COUNCIL OF REVISION, 1818-1848 27-52
Survey of the veto power in 1818 27
The veto provision in the constitution of 1818 27
The use of the veto power, 1818-1848 29
Extent of the use of the veto power 29
Effectiveness of the veto power 30
Bills becoming law without approval 34
Analysis of the veto messages 35
Vetoes on constitutional grounds 35
Vetoes on grounds of policy 40
Vetoes of defective bills 47
General estimate of the operation of the council of revision.... 49
CHAPTER III. THE SUSPENSIVE VETO UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
OF 1848 53-79
The form of veto power in the constitution of 1848 _ 53
The use of the veto power, 1848-1870 56
Extent of the use of the veto power „ 57
Effectiveness of the veto power 58
Bills becoming law without approval 62
Analysis of the veto messages, 1848-1870 62
Vetoes on constitutional grounds 63
Vetoes on grounds of policy 68
Vetoes of defective bills 75
Concluding remarks on the veto power, 1848-1870 76
PAGE
CHAPTER IV. THE VETO POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF 1870 80-128
The veto provisions of other states in 1870. 80
The veto provision in the constitutioj of 1870 82
The veto of appropriation items 85
The use of the veto power, 1870-1915 87
The extent of its use 87
The effectiveness of the veto power 88
Analysis of the veto messages, 1870-1915 89
Vetoes on constitutional grounds 90
Constitution of the United States 90
Constitution of Illinois 90
Bill of rights 91
The legislative department 94
The executive department 102
The judicial department 102
Suffrage — the ballot '. 103
Education — school lands 103
Revenue and taxation 104
Counties — salaries of officers 105
Corporations 105
Canals 106
Vetoes on grounds of policy 106
Vetoes of appropriation bills 118
Appropriation bills vetoed in full 119
Appropriation bills vetoed in part 120
Vetoes of defective bills 125
CHAPTER V. SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS 129-139
The veto power under the three constitutions 129
Reasons for disapproval 132
BIBLIOGRAPHY 140
INDEX 143
LIST OF TABLES.
PAGE
I- Table showing the present status of the veto power 26
II. Table showing the number and distribution of bills vetoed
by the council of revision, the action taken upon vetoes,
the reason for vetoes, and the number of laws enacted,
1818-1848 52
III. Table showing the number and distribution of bills vetoed,
the action taken upon vetoes, the reasons for disapproval,
and the number of laws enacted, 1848-1870 79
IV. Table of state appropriations, 1880-1915 118
• V. Table showing the number and distribution of bills vetoed,
the action taken upon vetoes, the reasons for disapproval,
and the number of laws enacted, 1870-1915 128
XV-
/-6
CHAPTEE I
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE VETO POWER IN
THE UNITED STATES
ORIGIN OF THE VETO POWER
The veto power, like many others of our political methods,
is an adaptation of a British practice transplanted to American
soil. To study the veto power of the governor of Illinois most
profitably, therefore, it seems best to trace it from its source;
to note its early translation to the colonies in America; and to
study its development in our self-governing states.
The veto power in early England was a royal prerogative.
According to the best theory of absolute monarchy the king was,
not the state, as Louis XIV would have said, but the people of
the state personified. The sovereign power was merged in his
person.1 He made laws on his own motion or in response to
petitions from his subjects. As late as the fourteenth century
laws were made by the king and the lords upon the petitions of
the commons.2 In the year 1414 the king consented not to
alter petitions. In 1445 the commons were definitely recognized
as part of the law-making power. Since that day laws have been
made by the king, by and with the advice and consent of the lords
spiritual and temporal and the commons — "and by the authority
of the same."3 Whatever may be the facts, the law is still
theoretically the king's law. Laws are still enacted by the king's,
most excellent majesty, etc. Assent is still given in the old'
Norman phrase : le roy le veult; and an act of Parliament is not
law without this formal consent.4
With the growth of Parliament the veto power has fallen-
into desuetude. While the theory still holds that the laws are
1Hobbes, Leviathan, pp. 157-158, 173 ff. (Molesworth Ed.)
2Ilbert, Parliament, p. 23.
3Maitland, Constitutional History of England, p. 423.
*It may be noted that in the American charter colonies and in the
states after the establishment of independent governments the executive is
dropped from the enacting clause. Veto cannot then be made by simple
inaction, but becomes a formal act of dissent.
II
12 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [12
made by the king's most excellent majesty, we must not forget
that he always acts "by and with the consent of the lords tem-
poral and spiritual and the commons." The king always wills
what he is petitioned to will. The veto on Parliamentary acts
was used the last time in 1707, when Queen Anne rejected the
Scotch Militia Bill.5 It is barely conceivable that circumstances
might arise under which the king would now oppose a veto to
the clear will of the majority in Parliament.6
But though the veto power at home has declined, it has been
found convenient to maintain it for colonial purposes. Legisla-
tion in British colonies is still subject to the veto of the king.
That he always acts "in council" is simply a convenient method
to insure that he does not act contrary to the will of the party
in power.7
THE VETO POWER IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES
While vetoes of colonial legislation are sparingly made in
the British Empire today, that can hardly be said of the practice
of a hundred and fifty years ago. Here the veto power was
practically undiminished. That the power was wielded not in
vain is abundantly testified by the fact that the first item in the
long list of grievances against the King of Great Britain enum-
erated by the Declaration of Independence is on account of the
use of the veto power. ' ' He has refused his assent to Laws, the
most wholesome and necessary for the public good, ' ' so runs the
indictment.
For the purpose of our discussion of the colonial veto
power, it is convenient to follow the customary division of the
colonies into three classes: charter or republican, proprietary,
and royal. In the charter colonies the governor had no veto
power. He was assisted by, and could act only in cooperation
with, his assistants or councillors, who like himself were chosen
annually by the freemen of the colonies.8
In the proprietary colonies the proprietor exercised the
right of veto. During his absence this power was delegated to
his deputy. That he afterwards — after the deputy had assented
to legislation — from time to time insisted on revising the latter 's
5Maitland, Constitutional History of England, p. 423.
7Lowell, Government of England, II pp. 404-405; Dicey, Law of the
Constitution, p. no and note. (Ed. 1908).
8Thorpe, Federal and State Constitutions, Charter of Connecticut, 1662;
Charter of Rhode Island, 1663.
13] GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE VETO 13
decisions, caused considerable friction. It was thought that
inasmuch "as the charter gave the right of legislation to the
proprietor and freemen, the absence of the proprietor ought not
to add a second veto."9 The proprietor was forced to yield;
but he proceeded to limit and restrict the deputy's power of
assent to such an extent as to render nugatory the reforms
accomplished.10 In only one of these colonies did the crown re-
serve the right of veto. In William Penn's charter of 1681,
founding the proprietary colony of Pennsylvania, "the crown
reserved the right to declare void, within six months after de-
livery in England, legislative acts of the colony inconsistent with
the supreme allegiance due to the crown."11
In the royal colonies the veto power of the governor was
absolute. Not only was his veto absolute, but his power of assent
was limited. Certain acts could not be signed by him at all.
They could be approved only by the king in council. Others
could be passed and assented to providing they carried a sus-
pending clause deferring their operation until such time as they
should have been approved by the king. Finally, all measures
assented to by the royal governor were subject to disallowance
at any time afterwards by the king. Such acts were allowed to
remain in force until disallowed. In the case of Massachusetts,
however, disallowance could be made only within three years
after presentation to the king. But this provision was evaded
by not making formal presentation of colonial acts before the
expediency of a veto had become apparent.12
EXTENSION OF THE VETO POWER
The Attitude of the Original States toward the Veto
Power. — During the struggle with Great Britain, the governor
had been the ally of the king. The popular assembly, on the
other hand, had truly represented the people. The result was
that the early American state-builders had confidence in legis-
lative assemblies, with a corresponding distrust of the execu-
tive.13 This is clearly reflected in the absence of the executive
veto power in our early state constitutions. Of the thirteen
original states only three provided for a veto power. The first
of these three to be adopted was the temporary constitution of
9Greene, The Provincial Governor, p. 13.
10/&«f, pp. 13-14.
"/fetrf., p. 6.
12/6td., pp. 162-165.
13Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 87-88.
14 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [14
South Carolina of 1776.14 The fact that this was intended as a
makeshift merely until "an accommodation of the unhappy
differences between Great Britain and America" could be
brought about, perhaps explains why the governor was permit-
ted to continue to exercise an absolute veto.
The constitution of New York of 1777 vested the veto power
in a council of revision, composed of the governor, the chan-
cellor, and the judges of the supreme court. Bills could be
passed over the veto by a two-thirds vote in each house. The
council was given ten days for the consideration of bills. If not
vetoed within that time, bills were to become effective without the
assent of the governor. Vetoes with the reasons therefor in
writing, were to be returned to the house in which the particular
bill in question had originated, where they were to be entered
at large in the journal and considered in connection with the
question of re-passage. If the legislature should adjourn before
the expiration of the ten day period given the council for the
consideration of bills, the return of the veto was to be made on
the first day of the next meeting of the legislature, or the bill
was to become a law.15 It has been thought desirable to call
attention to the details of the New York provision on account
of the fact that it was adopted with scarcely a change by the
Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1818.16
The third of the original states to adopt the veto power
in its first constitution was Massachusetts in 1780. This provis-
ion is remarkable for the fact that most of its essential features
were adopted by the national Constitutional Convention of 1787,
.and thereafter by most of the states of the Union. It provided
that a bill or resolve should be submitted to the governor for
approval or disapproval ; that if he should approve it, he should
sign it; but that if he did not, he should return it with his
reasons in writing to the house in which it had originated ; that
his message should be entered in the journal; and that upon
reconsideration two-thirds of the members of each house might
pass the bill over his veto. The time given the governor for the
consideration of bills was five days.17 If any bill should not be
returned by the expiration of that period, it was to become law
14Ibid., p. 30.
"Thorpe, Federal and State Constitutions, etc. Unless otherwise indi-
cated all references to constitutional provisions are to Thorpe.
16See below, chapter II. Illinois was the only other state to try the
council of revision plan.
"The national Constitution gives the President ten days.
15] GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE VETO 15
without his assent. No provision was made for the contingency
of adjournment before the expiration of the five days. Bills
could not, therefore, be vetoed after adjournment.18 To remedy
this defect an amendment was adopted in 1820 providing that
bills vetoed, the return of which had been prevented by the
adjournment of the General Court, should not become law.
It was noted above that the constitution of South Carolina
of 1776 was a temporary makeshift. In 1778 a revised consti-
tution was adopted, wherein the veto power was abolished alto-
gether. It was also noted that in New York the veto power was
not vested in the governor, but in a council of revision. It may
perhaps be said, therefore, that Massachusetts was the first of
the states to grant the governor the veto power. The remainder
of this chapter will be devoted to a discussion of how this power
has spread until it is possessed by every state governor in the
Union but one. An attempt will be made to discuss its growth
in two directions, so to speak, its spread among the states and
its development as an efficient tool in the hands of the executive.
By 1780, then, only two of the original states had the veto
power, namely, New York and Massachusetts. Nor were the
rest of the original states quick to fall into line. During the
following twenty years, 1780-1800, three adopted it, Georgia in
1789, Pennsylvania in 1790, and New Hampshire in 1792. From
that time onward till after the Civil War — a period of over 75
years — only two more adopted it, Connecticut in 1818 and New
Jersey in 1844.
At the end of the Civil War there were still six of the
original states which denied their governors the veto power.
Maryland made provision for it in her constitution of 1867. Two
others, South Carolina and Virginia, adopted it in their recon-
struction constitutions, the former in 1868 and the latter in
1870. That left only three of the original states. Delaware
authorized the governor's veto in 1879, and Ehode Island in
1909. It remains for North Carolina to stand out alone, not only
as the single one of the thirteen original states, but of all the
states in the Union, to deny her chief executive the veto power.
The Attitude of the New States toward the Veto Power. —
While the original states were slow to grant the veto power, the
reverse has been true of the new states. Only three of these,
Tennessee, Ohio, and West Virginia, did not adopt it in their
first constitutions. Tennessee waited from 1796 to 1870, West
18The national Constitution provides that if Congress by its adjourn-
ment shall prevent the return of bills, such bills shall not become law.
16 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [16
Virginia from 1862 to 1872, and Ohio, from 1802 to 1903. The
fact that new states so generally provided for the veto power,
may be at least partially explained by the fact that Congress in
establishing territorial governments always provided for a veto
power. At first this was absolute. But, beginning with the
Florida act of 1822, it gradually became customary to provide
that two-thirds of the members of the legislative assembly might
overrule the veto.19
DEVELOPMENT OP THE VETO POWER
The development and strengthening of the veto power in
the several states is, perhaps, the best evidence of the growth
of confidence in the governor. The mere statement that the veto
power is granted to this or that governor does not indicate
whether or not it is effective. That will be disclosed only upon
closer examination. And here arises such questions as these:
what vote is necessary to override the veto? how much time
does the governor have to consider bills, first, while the legisla-
ture is in session, and, second, after adjournment? and, finally,
does he have the power to veto items in appropriation bills?
These questions will be considered in the order mentioned.
The Size of the Vote required to Override tJw Veto. — With
regard to the vote required to override the veto two lines of
development were suggested at the beginning of our inde-
pendence. Two different precedents were made. It is hardly
conceivable, however, that we could have adopted the South
Carolina plan of an absolute veto. As we have seen, South
Carolina herself abandoned it in 1778, two years after she had
established her first state government. The other precedent was
set by New York and Massachusetts. Both had adopted a
qualified veto. Massachusetts required a two-thirds vote of the
total membership of each house of the legislature to override the
veto. New York required two-thirds of the total membership
in the house in which the bill had originated and two-thirds of
those present in the other house.
The New York-Massachusetts plan may seem to have pre-
vailed from the first. During the first seventy-five years of our
national existence, twenty-three states having adopted the veto
power, nine of these, beginning with Vermont in 1793, required
only a majority to override the veto, while fourteen required
19Farrand, Legislation of Congress for the Government of the Organ-
ised Territories of the United States, pp. 37, 41-42, 78-91.
17] GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE VETO 17
two-thirds. But if we look mor.e closely we shall find that only
one state, Connecticut, out of the group of nine requiring only
a majority for re-passage, permitted this to be done by a mere
majority of those present.20 On the other hand, six out of the
group of fourteen requiring a two-thirds vote to override the
veto permitted it to be done by two-thirds of those present.21
In all of those states it is conceivable that in a number of in-
stances bills were passed over the veto by a vote of less than half
of the total membership of both houses.
During the seventy-five year period, then, almost up to the
Civil War, the Massachusetts and New York22 precedents can not
be said to have had undisputed supremacy. But after the Civil
War the story is quite a different one. Only two states intro-
ducing the veto power since then have permitted it to be over-
ruled by a bare majority vote. They were Tennessee, 1870, and
West Virginia, 1872.
The general growth of the confidence in the executive is
perhaps nowhere more closely demonstrated than in the growth
of the veto power. Since 1778 only three states have ever reduced
the vote required to override a veto. Kentucky in 1799 reduced
the vote required from two-thirds to a majority of the total
membership. New York, in 1821, in changing from the council
of revision plan to the executive veto, provided that the gover-
nor's disapproval might be overruled by two-thirds of the mem-
bers present. And, Ohio in 1912 reduced it from two-thirds to
three-fifths of each house. In Nebraska there has been an appar-
ent reduction. The constitution of 1875 reduced the majority
required from two-thirds of those present to three-fifths of the
total membership. It is doubtful if that would prove a reduc-
tion of the majority necessary under the former constitution in
very many cases.
Since 1855, the end of the seventy-five year period, the
growth of the veto power has been remarkable. Five of the six
remaining original states adopted it. All the new states admit-
ted since then have adopted it. And all, with the exception of
20The other eight states in this group were Vermont, Indiana, Illinois,
Alabama, Missouri, Florida, Arkansas, and New Jersey.
21The states requiring a two-thirds vote of those present were New
York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas, Iowa, and California. Those requiring
two-thirds of the total membership were Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
New Hampshire, Kentucky, Georgia, Mississippi, Maine, and Louisiana.
22New York changed to two-thirds of those present in the constitution
of 1821.
18 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [18
Tennessee and West Virginia already mentioned, have required
something more than a majority to override the governor's
disapproval.
Not only have the newer states adopted a stronger form of
the veto power. A number of the older states have joined the
procession and strengthened the veto provisions of their consti-
tutions by revision or amendment. Virginia in 1902 strengthened
the veto power by adding a provision that the two-thirds ma-
jority of those present should not be less than a majority of the
total membership. Florida in 1868 and Vermont in 1913 raised
it from a majority of the total membership to two-thirds of those
present. Illinois in 1870 and Missouri in 1875 raised it from a
majority of the total membership to two-thirds of the total mem-
bership. Michigan in 1860 and California in 1879 raised the
majority required from two-thirds of those present to two-thirds
of the total membership. In New York the majority required
to override a veto has been altered twice. The constitution of
1777 required a two-thirds vote. It required two-thirds of
the total membership in the house in which the bill had
originated and two-thirds of those present in the other house.
In 1821 this was lowered to two-thirds of those present in both
houses. Finally, in 1874 it was raised to two-thirds of the total
membership.
To summarize the situation as it is found today we may di-
vide the states into three groups: Those requiring a majority,
those requiring a three-fifths vote, and those requiring a two-
thirds vote to override the veto. Each of these general groups
may be subdivided into two sub-groups, those basing their major-
ity on the members present and those basing it on the total mem-
bership. In the first group, consisting of eight states, one state
permits a veto to be overruled by a majority of those present.23
Seven require a majority of the total membership.24 In the second
group, consisting of five states, one permits three-fifths of those
present to override the veto.25 The other four require three-
fifths of the total membership.26 The third group is by far the
largest. It includes thirty-five states. Twelve of these permit
"Connecticut.
2*Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, Tennessee,
West Virginia.
25Rhode Island.
26Delaware, Maryland, Nebraska, Ohio.
19] GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE VETO 19
two-thirds of the members present to overrule the veto.27
Twenty- two require two-thirds of the total membership.28
The Time allowed the Governor for the Consideration of
Bills. — The time allowed the governor for the consideration of
bills may be considered from two points of view, the time allowed
during the session of the legislature and the time allowed after
it has adjourned. In regard to the time allowed the governor
for a consideration of bills during the session of the legislature,
a definite line of development appears. There seems to be a ten-
dency to consider five days satisfactory. Only eight states have
altered the time set in the first veto provisions. Four have
lengthened the time granted the governor: Arkansas and Ne-
braska have raised it from three to five days, and Alabama and
Texas from five to six and ten days, respectively. Four states
have lowered the time given — Indiana from five to three days,29
and Louisiana, Michigan, and Mississippi from ten to five days,
respectively. The situation as it exists today may be summar-
ized as follows : In eleven states the governor is given three days ;
in twenty-two, five days; in three, six days; and in eleven, ten
days.80
However, when we consider the fact that the great bulk of
bills are passed during the last few days of the legislative session,
the question of how long the governor has for the consideration
of bills during the session sinks into unimportance. Another
question arises as to the governor's power of approval or disap-
proval after adjournment. Two precedents were set by New
"Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota,
Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin.
28Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ne-
vada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsyl-
vania, South Carolina, Utah, Wyoming.
29Indiana is the only state that has lowered an existing constitutional
provision to less than five days.
80The states providing three days are : Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The states providing five days are : Ari-
zona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
and West Virginia. The states providing six days are: Alabama, Mary-
land and Rhode Island. The states providing ten days are: California,
Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Penn-
sylvania, Texas, and Utah.
20 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [20
York and Massachusetts, respectively. The New York constitu-
tion of 1777 provided that during the session of the legislature
the council of revision should have ten days exclusive of Sundays
for the consideration of bills with the provision that if by ad-
journment the legislature should prevent the return of bills at
the expiration of the ten day limit, return should be made on
the first day of the following session. This would seem to indi-
cate that the council would have ten days for the consideration
of bills regardless of whether or not the legislature was in ses-
sion. Six other states adopted similar provisions, Pennsylvania
and Kentucky in 1790 and 1792 respectively; Indiana, Illinois,
and Maine in 1816, 1818, and 1819 respectively. The last to
adopt it was South Carolina in her reconstruction constitution of
1868. But only the two last of the seven states retain it. The
other five have made other provisions, granting a definite
length of time for the consideration of bills after the adjourn-
ment of the legislature, New York in 1821, •• Illinois in 1848,
Indiana in 1851, Pennsylvania in 1873, and Kentucky in 1890.
The Massachusetts constitution of 1780 provided that the
governor should have five days for the consideration of bills,
and if return was not made within five days the bill should be-
come a law without the consent of the governor. It made na
provision for the contingency of adjournment before the expira-
tion of the five day period. Consequently bills could not be
vetoed after the adjournment of the General Court. To remedy
this defect an amendment was adopted in 1820 providing that
bills objected to should not become effective when their return
within the five day period had been prevented by the adjourn-
ment of the General Court. The defect pointed out in the Mas-
sachusetts provision was remedied in the national Constitution.
It provides that ' ' If any Bill shall not be returned by the Presi-
dent within ten 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 Congress by their Adjourn-
ment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."
Though twenty-two states adopted this provision only four have
done so since the Civil War. They were Nebraska and Maryland
in 1866 and 1867 respectively, and Virginia and Tennessee in
1870.
The provision of the national Constitution, which at the
end of the session enables the executive to prevent bills from
becoming law simply by inaction — the so-called "pocket veto,"
has lost favor. As stated above, only four states adopted it
21] GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE VETO 21
after the Civil War. Michigan had set a fourth precedent in
1850 by dropping the national provision and giving the governor
five days after the close of the session for the consideration of
bills. This plan found immediate favor. From that time on-
ward, most of the new and many of the older states adopted
similar provisions.
On the basis of these considerations we may divide con-
stitutional provisions as they exist today into two general
classes. In the first class are those carrying no definite provi-
sions as to the time granted the executive for the consideration
of bills after the adjournment of the legislature. In the second
class are those in which the time is specified. The first class is
composed of two sub-classes, those providing no definite time for
consideration after adjournment, but providing that vetoes
must be returned to the legislature at the beginning of the fol-
lowing session. There are now only two states in this sub-class,
namely, Maine and South Carolina, and it is believed that the
governor has the same time to consider bills that he would have
had, had the legislature remained in session. The second group
of provisions in this first class are those similar to that of the
national Constitution, granting no definite time after the ad-
journment for the consideration of bills but not requiring vetoes
made after adjournment to be returned to the next session.
This group now includes only eleven states.31 It is constantly
being encroached upon, and no new additions have been made
since 1870, when Tennessee adopted this provision. It has been
contended that since these provisions do not specifically author-
ize the governor to sign bills after the adjournment of the leg-
islature he has no power to do so. The better opinion seems to
be, however, that the governor has as much time as, and should
take no more time than, he would have had if the legislature
had remained in session. 32
31The states in this group are : Connecticut, Georgia, Kansas, Louisi-
ana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennessee,
Vermont, and Wisconsin.
32 J. D. Barnett, American Law Review, XLI, pp. 230-236. The
practice of the President of the United States has been to sign all bills
before the adjournment of Congress. It has been deviated from only in
one instance, 1863. A case involving the constitutionality of this act came
up in 1894. The court held that the President could approve bills after the
adjournment of Congress but within the time prescribed by the Consti-
tution (29 Ct. Cl. 253). The Constitution of Mississippi specifically
provides that the governor can not sign bills when the legislature is not irt
22 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [22
The second general class includes those provisions in which
a definite time is granted the governor for the consideration of
bills after the adjournment of the legislature. It is a large and
growing class including thirty-three states. The time granted
varies from. three to thirty days. One state, Minnesota, grants
three days. Five grant five days.33 One, New Mexico, grants
six days. Thirteen grant ten days.34 Four grant fifteen days.35
Two grant twenty days.36 And seven grant thirty days.37 Ref-
erence to the table at the end of this chapter will show that
twenty-four states grant longer time for the consideration of
bills after adjournment than during the session. It remains to
add that while one would naturally expect that bills would be-
come law unless vetoed within the specified time after adjourn-
ment, that is not nearly always the case. The constitutional
provisions of twenty-three states are so worded or have been
construed to mean that a failure to approve a bill, the return
of which is prevented by the adjournment of the legislature,
shall prevent it from becoming law.38
The Power to Veto Items in Appropriation Bills. — A third
step was necessary, however, to make the governor's veto power
complete. Under the old plan bills must be vetoed as a whole.
Now, it is true that most constitutions provide that each bill
shall include only one subject and that that shall be clearly
stated in the title. But general appropriation bills must neces-
sarily contain a number of items. Members of the legislature,
session. In states where there is no constitutional prohibition the courts
with few exceptions hold that approval or disapproval can be made after
adjournment.
34Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. In Nevada
the legislature may at its following session repass bills vetoed after
adjournment.
S3Indiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, and West Virginia. In Oregon
the legislature at its following session may repass a bill rejected after
adjournment
35Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
36Arkansas and Texas.
37 California, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Missouri, New York, and
Pennsylvania.
88Newman, J. H., Digest of Constitutions, p. 103. The twenty-three
states are : California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mis-
souri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
23] GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OP THE VETO 23
therefore, soon found here a chance to evade the veto power.
Against the system of log-rolling and the attachment of riders
many of the governors found themselves helpless. Few had the
courage to reject important appropriation bills and thereby
endanger a large part of the state administration.
To remedy this defect the power to veto separate items in
appropriation bills has been resorted to. Three states have even
gone so far as to authorize the governor to veto distinct and
separate items of any bill. At present the governors of Wash-
ington and South Carolina possess this latter power. The for-
mer state adopted it in 1889 and the latter in 1895. The con-
stitution of Ohio, by an amendment of 1903, carried a similar
provision. But this power was confined to appropriation bills
by the revision of 1912.
The power of the governor to veto items in appropriation
bills finds its first acceptance in the Constitution of the Confed-
erate States. The provisional constitution of February 8, 1861,
provided that "The president may veto any appropriation or
appropriations in the same bill." This same provision in slightly
altered form was adopted in the permanent constitution of
March 11 of the sam'». year.39 Georgia and Texas in 1865 and
1866 respectively, incruded this power in their proposed con-
stitutions under the presidential plan of reconstruction. These
same two states again included it in their constitutions of 1868,
adopted under the congressional plan of reconstruction.
Since the Civil War every new state admitted to the Union,
and many of the older states — making a total of thirty-six have
granted their governors this power.40 It may be added that
Alabama in 1901 and Virginia in 1902 authorized their govern-
ors to return bills with suggested amendments. In each case the
bill must again be returned to the governor for approval or dis-
approval regardless of the action of the legislature on the sug-
gested amendment.
39Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,
I, pp. 641, 654.
40The thirty-six states are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Mon-
tana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon (1916), Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.
24 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [24
Summary. — If one were to pick out the model states with
reference to the strength of the veto provisions in their constitu-
tions, the list would be headed by California, Colorado, Missouri,
New York, and Pennsylvania. In each of these five states a two-
thirds vote of the total membership of each house is required to
pass a bill over the veto. The governor is given ten days for the
consideration of bills during the session of the legislature and
thirty days after its adjournment. In all cases he has the power
to veto items in appropriation bills. In Pennsylvania he may
even reduce items.41
Two other states almost come into this group, Delaware and
Texas. The former just misses it by requiring a three-fifths
vote of the total membership of each house to override the veto
instead of a two-thirds vote as in the other five cases. Texas
stands slightly lower in the list, requiring only two-thirds of
those present to override the veto. Instead of thirty days as in
all the six cases above she grants only twenty days for the con-
sideration of bills after the adjournment of the legislature.
Disregarding the great bulk of the states combining strong
and weak features of the veto power in varying degrees, and
disregarding North Carolina which has no veto power at all, we
find at the other end of the list four states combining weak
features of the veto power. Lowest on the list stands Connecti-
cut which permits a majority of those present to override the
veto, gives the governor only three days to consider bills, makes
no specific grant of time after the adjournment of the legisla-
ture, and does not permit him to veto items in appropriation bills.
Just above Connecticut in the order named stands Indiana and
Tennessee. Both permit a majority of the total membership of
each house to override the veto. During the session Indiana
grants three and Tennessee five days for the consideration of
bills. After adjournment Indiana grants five days while Ten-
nessee makes no specific grant. Neither give the right to veto
items in appropriation bills. Rhode Island all but comes into
this class of extremely weak states. She permits three-fifths of
those present in each house to override the veto. She does not
permit the governor to veto items in appropriation bills. How-
ever, a distinct improvement is noted in regard to the time given
for the consideration of bills. In Ehode Island the governor
is allowed six days during the legislative session and ten days
after adjournment.
41 By judicial construction. See Com. v. Barnett, 199 Pa. 161 (1901).
25] GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE VETO 25
THE AMERICAN THEORY OP THE VETO POWER
With the establishment of "independence there occurred a
shift in the theory of the veto power. Heretofore the king had
been sovereign. Now sovereignty was transferred to the people.
That the chief executives in our national and state governments
still retain the veto power in modified form is variously ex-
plained. Alexander Hamilton held that it was necessary to
enable the executive to protect himself against the encroach-
ments of the legislative department. That was held to be the
primary function of the veto power. But in addition, Hamilton
saw in it a wholesome check upon hasty and unwise legislation —
an evil which has assumed the first magnitude since the early
days of the Republic.42
Early presidents and public men seem to have inclined to
the view that the only object of the veto power was to protect
the constitution. But by the time of the Civil War its importance
as relating to legislation in general had become recognized.43
Thus President Grant in vetoing the Currency Bill of April,
1874, " assigned as his reason that it was 'a departure from true
principles of finance, national interest, national obligation to
creditors, congressional promises, party pledges, and personal
views and promises made by me in every annual message sent
to Congress and in each inaugural address'."44 By President
Cleveland the opinion was definitely expressed that the veto
power was given with the express purpose of enabling the execu-
tive to participate in legislation. It was given, he held, "for the
purpose of invoking the exercise of executive judgment and
inviting independent executive action. ' >45 Whether that was the
intention or not, it is doubtless in accord with what we expect
of a chief executive today, both in the nation and in the states.
He more nearly represents all the people than any other officer
in the government. He has come nearer than Hobbes' monarch
to bear the composite personality of the people of his state. His
relation to legislation is becoming as vital as that of the king
who enacts laws in response to the petitions of his subjects. And
thus we have the strange spectacle of the veto power, once a
royal prerogative, having become an indispensable power in the
hands of a democratic executive.
42Hamilton, Federalist, No. 73 ; Garner, Introduction to Political Sci-
ence, p. 566.
43See Chapter II.
44Beard, op. cit., p. 203.
26 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [26
I. TABLE SHOWING THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE VETO POWER
State
United States „
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida 2A
Georgia
Idaho 2A
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana 2A
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico 2A
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota 2A
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont 2A
Virginia
Washington 2A
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Vote required to
override veto
present
total
y*
2A
y*
2A
2/3
2A
2A
Ys
2A
2A
2A
2/3
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
y*
2A
Number of days to
consider bills
during
session
10
6
5
5
10
10
3
10
5
5
5
10
3
3
3
10
5
5
6
5
5
3
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
3
10
3
10
5
5
10
6
3
3
5
10
10
5
5
5
5
3
3
after
session
*
10
IO
20
30
30
*
30
IO
*
10
IO
5
30
3
**
30
IS
5
10
6
30
15
10
15
5
30
10
*
10
*
20
IO
*
10
IO
5
*
IS
May ve-
to items
in ap-
propria-
tion bills
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
*The general opinion is that the governor has the same time regard-
less of adjournment.
**Mississippi specifically forbids the governor to sign bills when the
legislature is not in session.
CHAPTER II
THE COUNCIL OF REVISION 1818-1848
SURVEY OP THE VETO POWER IN 1818
The situation in regard to the veto power at the time of the*
admission of Illinois may be briefly summarized as follows:
New York alone had provided for a council of revision. Nine
states, Massachusetts (1780), Georgia (1789), Pennsylvania
(1790), New Hampshire (1792), Kentucky (1792), Vermont
(1793), Louisiana (1812), Indiana (1816), and Mississippi
(1817) had granted the veto power to the governor.
The time allowed for the consideration of bills varied from
five to ten days. Five states, Massachusetts, Georgia, Vermont,
New Hampshire, and Indiana, allowed five days. Mississippi
allowed six days. And four states, New York, Pennsylvania,
Kentucky, and Louisiana, allowed ten days.
The vote required to override the veto varied from a ma-
jority to two-thirds of each house of the legislature. In all
cases the majorities required were based on the total member-
ship of the houses respectively. Four states, New York, Ver-
mont, Kentucky, and Indiana, permitted a majority in each
house to override the veto. On the other hand, six states, Mas-
sachusetts, Georgia, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Mississippi,
and Louisiana, required a two-thirds vote. Ten states, Con-
necticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia,
had no veto power. Connecticut, however, adopted it later in
the same year.
THE VETO PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1818
The Illinois constitutional convention of 1818 thus had two
general precedents either of which it might follow. Two dif-
ferent plans were formally advanced and considered by it. One,
which was eventually adopted, was the New York council of re-
vision plan. The other was a strong veto power lodged in the
hands of the governor. It was similar to the provisions in
force in Louisana and Pennsylvania. Both of these states re-
quired a two-thirds vote to override the governor's veto, both
27
28 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [28
gave him ten days for the consideration of bills, and both re-
quired that bills vetoed after the adjournment of the legislature
should be returned within the first three days of the following
session. The plan proposed in the Illinois convention differed
only in that it required bills vetoed after adjournment to be
returned on the first day of the following session of the general
assembly.
It was noted above that not a single state had followed the
New York plan of a council of revision — but that on the other
hand since then nine states and the United States had vested
the power of veto in their chief executives. That Illinois never-
theless adopted the New York plan must be ascribed mainly to
the influence of Elias Kent Kane who was a member of the
convention. Mr. Kane was born in New York, educated at Yale,
and had studied law in New York. He had removed to Illinois
in 1814. In the convention of 1818 he was a member of the
committee of fifteen entrusted with the work of drafting the
new constitution.1 Mr. Kane took a prominent part in framing
the constitution.2 Indeed, he has been called the "principal
member" of the convention.3
The committee of fifteen reported as section 15 of Article
III, dealing with the executive department, almost word for
word that section of the New York constitution of 1777 dealing
with the council of revision.4 A few days later, while the plan
of the committee of fifteen was being considered, the alternative
plan already referred to was offered. It gave the veto power to
the governor. It allowed- him ten days for the consideration of
bills. It required a two-thirds vote of each house to override the
veto. It provided that if the legislature by adjournment should
prevent the return of bills within the ten days allowed, such
bills were to be returned on the first day of the following ses-
sion or become laws.5 This plan is not heard of any more.
Three days later, on August 17, Article III being considered
section by section, the council of revision plan as originally pro-
1Carpenter, "The Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1818," Journal
of the Illinois State Historical Society, VI, pp. 327 ff.
2Carpenter, op. cit., pp. 349, 352.
8Ford, History of Illinois, p. 24; Reynolds, My Ozvn Times, p. 211.
Reynolds says of Mr. Kane that he "was an accomplished scholar, and was
the leader in the convention."
.4Carpenter, op. cit., pp. 3/6-377.
5Ibid., pp. 390-39I-
29 J THE COUNCIL OF REVISION 29
posed by the committee of fifteen was adopted. The vote re-
quired to override the veto, however, was placed at a majority
of each house and not at two-thirds as in New York.6 This sec-
tion, without any further changes was adopted on the final read-
ing.7
The veto power in its final form was found in section 19 of
Article III of the constitution. It provided :
"The governor for the time being, and the judges of the supreme
court or a major part of them, together with the governor, shall be, and
are hereby, constituted a council to revise all bills about to be passed into
laws by the general assembly; and for that purpose shall assemble them-
selves from time to time when the general assembly shall be convened, for
which nevertheless they shall not receive any salary or consideration under
any pretense whatever ; and all bills which have passed the senate and
house of perperesntatives shall, before they become laws, be presented
to the said council for their revisal and consideration ; and if, upon such
revisal and consideration, it shall appear improper to the said council or
a majority of them, that the bill should become a law of this state, they
shall return the same, together with their objections thereto in writing,
to the senate or house of representatives (in whichsoever the same
shall have originated,) who shall enter the objections set down by the
council at large in their minutes, and proceed to reconsider the said
bill. But if, after such reconsideration, the said senate or house of repre-
sentatives shall, notwithstanding the said objections, agree to pass the
same by a majority of the whole number of members elected, it shall,
together with the said objections, be sent to the other branch of the
general assembly, where it shall also be reconsidered, and if approved by
a majority of all the members elected, it shall become a law. If any
bill shall not be returned within 10 days after it shall have been presented,
the same shall be a law, unless the general assembly shall by their ad-
journment, render a return of the said bill in 10 days impracticable; in
which case the said bill shall be returned on the first day of the meeting
of the general assembly, after the expiration of the said 10 days, or be
a law."8
THE USE OF THE VETO POWER, 1818-1848
Extent of the Use of the Veto Power. — The Illinois council
of revision was in existence thirty years, 1818-1848. During
that period 3158 laws were enacted by the general assembly.
The number of bills disapproved by the council was small in
comparison. It amounted to only 104. No session passed with-
6Ibid., p. 398.
7Ibid., p. 409.
8Thorpe, II, pp. 978 ff.; Kurd, Revised Statutes of the State of Illi-
nois, (1913) p. xxxii.
30 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [30
out a veto. In each of two sessions, the sessions of 1831 and
1833 respectively, only two bills were disapproved. The session
of 1827 produced the largest crop of vetoes during the council
of revision period. Sixteen bills were returned, ten to the house
and six to the senate. At the session of 1819 and again in 1839
twelve bills were disapproved. Taking the whole period, the
number of bills vetoed average about seven for each general as-
sembly.
Relative to the number of bills passed, the number disap-
proved was small. Taking the whole period it was something
like three and one-third per cent. During the session of 1833,
when 228 laws were enacted, only two bills were vetoed. In
1837 335 laws were enacted and only three bills were vetoed. In
both of these sessions the bills vetoed were less than one per
cent of those enacted into law. The greatest percentage was
reached in 1827 when 16 bills were disapproved as compared
with 89 laws enacted, or eighteen per cent.
It may be of interest to point out also that the disapproval
almost regularly was applied more frequently to house measures
than to senate measures. Out of the 104 vetoed bills 66 orig-
inated in the house of representatives while only 38 originated
in the senate. In only four out of the fifteen regular sessions —
1831, 1835, 1841, and 1845 — did the senate bills vetoed exceed
the house bills vetoed, and then only by very small figures. But
while the house bills disapproved outnumbered the senate bills
by nearly two to one, the bills passed over the disapproval of
the council were very largely house measures. Out of the eleven
bills passed over the veto eight had originated in the house of
representatives.
Effectiveness of the Veto Power. — During the existence
of the council of revision only eleven bills were passed
over the veto. Compared with the number of vetoes that
is something over one in ten. They were scattered through the
period at irregular intervals. During the legislative session
of 1819 one bill was passed over the veto. During the following
session (1821) four were so passed. From then onward bills
were very rarely passed over the disapproval of the council.
In 1827 three were passed, and in 1835 and 1841 two and one
respectively.
The character of the bills passed over the veto can not be
said to reflect credit upon the general assembly. The first act
to be passed over was an act of 1819 making an appropriation for
the payment of census takers. A certain census taker, who had
31] THE COUNCIL OF REVISION 31
a valid claim, was left out. The legislature perhaps had a grudge
against this person. At any rate, the objections of the council
were overruled.9
During the following session the council objjscted to a bill
providing for the safe keeping of prisoners held in state jails
under the authority of the United States^ -The bill virtually
ordered the United States to pay for the keeping of prisoners.
The council believed that the order should be directed against
the officers who had charge of the prisoners. The legislature
refused to amend the bill, and it was passed over the veto.10
During that same session the act establishing the State Bank of
Illinois was disapproved. It was considered a violation of Arti-
cle I, section 10 of the Constitution of the United States which
forbids states to ' ' emit bills of credit. ' ' The council had submit-
ted a long and able argument showing that the notes proposed
to be issued by the bank upon the faith and credit of the state
were in fact "bills of credit" in the sense of the national con-
stitution. The veto was referred to a select committee which
made a lengthy report absolutely denying that the notes in ques-
tion were "bills of credit." Referring to the Federalist, upon
which the council had drawn freely for support of its argument,
the committee found that :
"They (the writers in the Federalist) never supposed that the states
were prohibited from issuing bank notes ; but that the prohibition only
extended to paper money. For it must always be recollected that bank
notes are never considered money, nor is any thing so considered but
such medium as is made a legal tender in the payment of debts."
The bill was passed over the veto in both houses.11 Twelve
years later a case involving this law came up before the supreme
court and the act was held unconstitutional insofar as it had
related to the emission of bills of credit.12
A third bill passed over the veto during that session was
a bill providing for the election of a sheriff and coroner for
Jefferson county. The council objected to the bill because it
^Senate Journal, 1819, p. 198; House Journal, 1819, pp. 175-176, 177.
Hereafter Senate Journal and House Journal will be designated 5". /.
and H. J. respectively.
™H. J. 1821, 107; S. J. 61, 84, 109, 112.
"5". /. 1821, pp. 135, 139, 166; H. J. pp. 261-271.
12Linn v. President and Directors of the State Bank of Illinois, 2 ///.
87. This appears to be a narrower interpretation of the prohibition than
that adopted by the United States Supreme Court. Briscoe v. Bank of
Kentucky, u Pet. 257; Darrington v. Bank of Alabama, 13 How. 12.
32 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [32
removed the existing officer. It was held to be a bad precedent.
The council suggested that there ought to be a general law pro-
viding a method of removal.13
Six years later, during the session of 1827, a bill providing
for the examination of the Bank of Edwardsville was passed
over the veto. The council had objected because the bank was
a private institution. Investigation into purely private and in-
dividual affairs were considered "unwarranted under the spirit
and genius of our institutions. ' '14 It will be recalled that during
the session of 1821 a bill creating the State Bank of Illinois had
been passed over the veto. The notes of the bank soon began to
depreciate. The members of the general assembly of 1827,
therefore, proposed to recoup themselves by providing that in
the payment of salaries of members of that body, the notes should
be rated at seventy cents on the dollar. The council vainly ob-
jected that other state officials were obliged to take them at
seventy-five cents.15
In the year 1835 a bill providing for the election of county
recorders and surveyors was passed over the veto. The bill was
very defective. It did not guard against the possibility of an
interregnum. Under it it would have been possible to have two
officers elected for the same place. And it provided no method
for the settlement of contested elections. Only two days after
the bill had been passed over the veto, however, the legislature
passed another bill remedying every defect pointed out by the
council.16
It is not the purpose of the writer to enumerate all the bills
passed over the veto. Nor are these the worst examples. On
the other hand, not one of the eleven bills under discussion seems
to have had any merit in it.
Out of the remaining ninety-three vetoes, one was with-
drawn by the council, thirty were dropped from further con-
sideration by the general assembly, and sixty-two, or exactly
two-thirds, were amended to meet the objections of the council.
The only veto withdrawn by the council was in 1845. A bill to
amend the usury law of the state had been disapproved because
it was held to be too harsh on an innocent purchaser or holder
13//. /. 1821, p. 195; 5". /. pp. 104-106.
14//. /. 1827, pp. 431, 433, 436.
15//. /. 1827, pp. 490-491, 493, 495, 497, 502.
16//. /., 1835, pp. 408-410, 449; S. ]., pp. 385, 458; La^vs, pp. 61, 62,
165-167.
33] THE COUNCIL OF REVISION 33
of an instrument carrying a usurious rate of interest. The coun-
cil later withdrew its objections, owing to the fact that it was so
late in the session that the defect could not be remedied, but it
expressed the hope that the defect might be remedied at the fol-
lowing session.17
Sixty-two bills were amended to obviate the objections of
the council. It is of interest here to note that the council very
often suggested that bills be amended to meet the objections
raised. Indeed, in many cases the council itself suggested spe-
cific amendments. In 1827 an act was passed for the " limita-
tion of actions and for avoiding vexatious law suits." It re-
pealed the existing statute of limitations thus defeating its own
purpose in a great number of cases where the existing statute
had already run for a considerable time. The council therefore
suggested that the existing statute be continued in force along-
side the new one in such cases where it had already begun to
run. But since they had returned the bill for the reasons stated
they "availed themselves of the opportunity to suggest to the
legislature, some additions and amendments to the bill, which
they believe will tend to make it more perfect. ' '18
During the same session a bill was passed ' ' concerning land-
lords and tenants." The bill made under-tenants and assignees
of lessees responsible for the breaches of contract in regard to
the leased property. The council pointed out the distinction
between an under-tenant and an assignee of a lessee. They sug-
gested that the term assignee be substituted for under-tenant in
all cases where it appeared, and that the liability of the assignee
be limited to such breaches of contract as had been committed
after the assignment of the lease. They suggested other details
of minor importance.19
In 1841 an act making school commissioners elective was
disapproved. The council suggested that it was in conflict with
other acts passed. They suggested a substitute for the section
to which they had objected. The bill itself was not amended,
but the suggestions of the council were incorporated as section
12 of a general act concerning the common schools.20 A num-
ber of other cases might be cited. But it is believed that these
examples are fairly representative. It remains to add that
175\ /., 1845, pp. 423-425, 428-429, 439-440, 443-
18/f. /., 1872, pp. 351-352, 354, 36o, 366.
19#. /., 1827, pp. 388-389, 395, 440.
ZOS. J., 1841, p. 149; Laws, 1841.
34 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [34
amendments suggested by the council were very generally ac-
cepted by the general assembly.
The constitution required that if the council should object
to a bill they were to return it to the house in which it had orig-
inated together with their objections in writing. The objections
were required to be entered at large in the journal and consid-
ered in connection with the question of repassage. This provi-
sion was complied with in all cases but two. During the legis-
lative session of 1819 a house bill for the relief of debtors was
vetoed. This was in fact the first veto made by the council of
revision. The reasons for the veto were not given. The entry
in the journal simply states that "the council have had under
consideration 'an act for the relief of debtors' and have disap-
proved the same."21 It is not clear whether the council failed
to give any reasons or whether the clerk of the house failed to
enter the message on the record.
The second case occurred during the second session of the
fourth general assembly. A bill for "an act relating to the
revenue of Calhoun, Pike, Adams, Schuyler, Fulton and Peoria
counties" was disapproved. The reasons for the veto were
given, but not entered in the journal.22
Bills becoming Law without Approval. — It will be recalled
that the constitution provided that if the council of revision
should fail to act on a bill within ten days or the general
assembly by adjournment should prevent the return of any
bill within ten days after its presentation to the council
(in which latter case return was to be made on the first
day of the following session) all such bills were to become
laws. This provision made it possible for a bill to become a
law without approval.
The number of bills thus becoming law has been negligible,
except during the three sessions 1835, 1837, and 1839. During
these sessions fourteen, twenty-one, and twenty-three bills re-
spectively became laws in this manner. This may be partially
explained by the fact that during those sessions an unusually
large number of laws were enacted. In 1835 there were 319,
almost a hundred more than during the preceding general as-
sembly. In 1839-40 there were 403 laws enacted, the greatest
number enacted by any general assembly during the whole pe-
riod from 1818 to 1848.
21H. /., 1819, p. 43-
225. J., 1826, pp. 116, 117, 122, 127.
35] THE COUNCIL OP REVISION 35
There are, however, two other facts about the bills of these
sessions becoming laws without approval, either of which or both
together may furnish a satisfactory explanation. In the first
place, thirty-six of them were in the hands of the council after
the adjournment of the general assembly. In the second place,
forty-seven were local or private bills — especially for the relief
of widows and minors.23 It seems likely, therefore, that the
council, having a large number of bills on their hands at the end
of the legislative session, first considered general and less ob-
jectionable measures and left the others to become effective auto-
matically, either because they were pressed for time or because
they were not objectionable enough to be formally disapproved.
The provision that bills vetoed after the adjournment of
the general assembly should be returned on the first day of the
following session proved unimportant. Only three vetoes were
thus made — one in 1825, one in 1835, and one in 1845. The first
was amended to meet the objections of the council. The other
two were dropped from further consideration.24
ANALYSIS OF THE VETO MESSAGES
An examination of the reasons presented in the messages
of disapproval discloses three general classes of vetoes: First,
vetoes on constitutional grounds; second, vetoes on grounds of
policy or expediency ; and third, vetoes of defective bills. These
classes are not exclusive, however. Often bills were objected to
on more than one of these grounds. But it is thought best to
group them in these general classes on the basis of the most im-
portant considerations which led to their disapproval.
The term unconstitutional will be considered broadly so as
to include not only bills violating the terms of the constitutions
of Illinois and the United States directly but also those con-
flicting with the laws of Congress. The second class will include
vetoes where the council took part in the policy determining
power of the government. It is true that this was done nega-
tively through blocking certain measures. But often the mes-
sages of disapproval were accompanied by suggestions that have
lead to. the adoption of positive policies. Under the term de-
fective will be included bills disapproved as being superfluous,
carrying conflicting provisions, or containing ambiguous terms.
Vetoes on Constitutional Grounds. — During the period 1818-
23See Laws, 1835, 1837, 1839.
24S. /., 1825, pp. 5, 25 ; H. /., 1835, p. 6 ; S. J ., 1845, pp. 6, 25, 26, 59.
36 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [36
1848 twenty-eight bills were vetoed on constitutional grounds.
They were scattered rather evenly throughout the whole period.
During the sessions of 1828, 1831, and 1833 there were no vetoes
on constitutional grounds. Otherwise they are well distrib-
uted,— running as high as four in number only during the ses-
sions of 1839, 1841, and 1847. Only two out of the twenty-nine
were passed over the veto. In 1821 the bill creating the State
Bank of Illinois was passed over the disapproval of the council.
So was also in 1835 an act providing for the election of district
attorneys for each of the judicial circuits by joint vote of the
general assembly. It had been vetoed as conflicting with the
governor's appointing power under Article III section 22 of the
constitution.25
As has already been suggested, vetoes on constitutional
grounds may be divided into three classes: (1) bills conflicting
with the Constitution of the United States, (2) bills conflicting
with the laws of the United States, and (3) bills conflicting with
the constitution of Illinois.
Four bills were disapproved because they conflicted with
the Constitution of the United States. All were regarded by the
council as violations of Article II, section 10, paragraph 1. The
act of 1821 establishing the State Bank of Illinois has already
been referred to. It conflicted with the provision that no state
shall emit bills of credit.26 Two bills, passed in 1839 and 1840
respectively, conflicted with the prohibition against a violation
of the obligation of contract. The first was an act to authorize
the governor to appoint bank directors. But it involved some
banks established under a law carrying no such provision. The
council objected that the general assembly could not authorize
the governor to appoint directors for the banks without their
consent.27 The same provision was violated the following year.
A bill authorizing a certain Allan P. Hubbard to build a mill dam
across Fox river repealed all acts previously passed authorizing
the construction of dams across that river unless the proprietors
of such dams should comply with certain requirements of this
act.28 The fourth bill was in violation of a contract between the
Z5H. J., 1835, pp. 444, 448; S. J., pp. 385, 457. It must be borne in
mind, however, that in all these cases, it was merely the opinion of the
council that the bills in question were unconstitutional. The final settle-
ment of that question could, of course, not be made by the council as such.
26S. J., 1821, pp. 135-139, 166; H. J., 261-271.
27W. /., 1839, pp. 546, 547-548; S. /., p. 454-
ZSS. /., 1840, pp. 162, 168, 204.
37] THE COUNCIL OF REVISION 37
state of Illinois and the United States. It was passed in 1826
and grew out of the bank act of 1821 and the depreciated cur-
rency resulting therefrom. The 'bill proposed to authorize res-
idents of Illinois to pay their taxes in specie at a reduced rate,
while it still held non-residents liable for the whole amount.
The council held that this was a violation of section six of the
enabling act, accepted by the convention of 1818, providing that
"all the lands belonging to the citizens of the United States,
residing without the said state (Illinois), shall never be taxed
higher than lands belonging to persons residing therein."29
Three bills presented to the council were in violation of acts
of Congress. They were all of minor importance. In 1827 a
bill was passed establishing certain state roads. One of these
roads, to run from Peoria and Rushville to the mines on Fox
River, would have gone through Indian territory for a consid-
erable distance. This was a clear violation of an act of Congress
making it a criminal offense to trespass or survey on Indian
land.30 The second bill of this class was an "act to regulate
weights and measures," passed in 1843. But this being one of
the powers delegated to Congress by the national Constitution
and Congress having acted in 1836, this power could not longer
be exercised by the states.31
Twenty bills were disapproved as conflicting with the con-
stitution of Illinois. One conflicted with Article II, dealing
with the legislative department; four with Article III, the ex-
ecutive department; two with Article IV, the judicial depart-
ment; thirteen with Article VIII, the bill of rights; and one
with section 3 of the Schedule.
The bill violating the article of the constitution dealing with
the legislative department was passed by the session of 1821.
It provided that in case of vacancies occurring in the general
assembly the clerk of the county commissioners' court was to
order a new election to fill the vacancy. The council pointed
out the fact that Article II section 11 of the constitution re-
quired the governor to issue writs of election in case of vacan-
cies in the general assembly.32
Four bills conflicted with Article III, dealing with the ex-
-9H. ]., 1826, p. 144; 5. /., pp. 129-133, 148; Thorpe, op. cit., Vol. II,
pp. 970-97L
*°S. J., 1827, pp. 240, 245.
S1H. J., 1843, pp. 482, 483, Si i ; S. /., 511.
S2S. J., 1821, pp. 126-127, I29J H. J., 132.
38 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [38
ecutive department. The first of these was a violation of section
II of that article requiring sheriffs to be elected by popular vote
under such regulations as the general assembly might prescribe.
The assembly in 1827 attempted to fill a vacancy in Bond county
by legislative act.33 Two bills were in conflict with section 22,
which provided that the governor should nominate and appoint
by and with the advice and consent of the senate all officers
established by the constitution or by law, except such as had
been otherwise provided for by the constitution, or minor officers
whose duties were confined to a county. The latter might be
appointed as the general assembly should provide by law. The
first bill to conflict with this provision was passed in 1827. It
proposed to vest the appointment of state's attorneys in the
hands of the two houses of the general assembly. State's attor-
neys, it was pointed out, were not officers whose jurisdiction cov-
ered only one county. They could therefore be appointed only
in the way prescribed by the constitution.34 The second bill con-
flicting with section 22 was passed in 1835. Curiously enough, it
dealt with precisely the same subject, ''the election of a state's
attorney for each judicial circuit now or hereafter to be created
by the joint vote of the general assembly." The council called
attention to the veto message of 1827. They restated the former
argument and added that they now objected to the appointment
of local officers by men not directly responsible to the people
affected. The bill, they said, " violates a salutary principle of
free government by vesting in the same hands the power to
create and to fill the same office." Nevertheless, the bill was
passed over the veto by good majorities in both houses.35
The fourth bill of this class was the famous internal im-
provements act of 1837. The majority of the members of the
council objected to section four of the bill which provided that
vacancies on the board of public works which should occur dur-
ing the recess of the general assembly should be filled by the other
members of the board. This was held to conflict with Article
III section 8 of the constitution authorizing the governor to
make recess appointments.36 There were other objections which
do not concern us here. It may, however, be said that contrary
to a general impression the bill was not vetoed on grounds of
policy.
S3H. ]., 1827, pp. 377-378, 385, 389, 395-
34H. /., 1827, pp. 484-487, 491, 497.
**H; J., 1835, PP. 444, 448; S. /., 385, 457-
36//. /., 1837, pp. 720-722, 724, 730.
39] THE COUNCIL OF REVISION 39
It seems convenient to discuss here the bill conflicting with
section 3 of the Schedule referred to above. Section 3 provided
that ' ' no sheriff or collector of public moneys shall be eligible to
any office in this state, until they have paid over, according to
law, all moneys which they may have collected by virtue of their
respective offices. ' ' The bill in question made it the duty of the
governor to issue commissions to persons as sheriffs and coroners
provided it appeared from the returns made to the secretary's
office that such persons had received a majority vote. The coun-
cil suggested the necessity of legislation to make section 3
effective.37
Two bills were passed conflicting with the article on the
judiciary. In 1823 a bill was passed amending the act estab-
lishing courts of probate. The council objected to a section pro-
viding that probate judges were to be elected "at each and every
session of the general assembly." They pointed out that under
Article IV section 5 of the constitution judges of the inferior
courts were to hold their offices during good behavior.38 In 1837
a bill was passed organizing Henry county. One section of this
act conflicted with two provisions of the constitution. It pro-
vided that the clerk of the county commissioners' court was to
issue certificates of election to justices of the peace and consta-
bles when they had been elected. This was in conflict with Ar-
ticle IV section 8 of the constitution which provided that jus-
tices of the peace were to receive their commissions from the
governor. It also conflicted with Article II section 26 which
required all officers to take a prescribed oath of office before en-
tering upon their duties.39
The Bill of Eights, Article VIII of the constitution of 1818,
proved the undoing of about half the bills vetoed on constitu-
tional grounds during the period of the council of revision. This
is especially true of section 8 which alone accounted for eleven
bills. All of these bills were attempts to dispose of property by
legislative act. In seven cases it was attempted to dispose of
property belonging to individuals, usually by empowering heirs
or administrators to act.40 In 1839 and 1840 acts were passed
creating the towns of Savannah and Livingston respectively.
37H. /., 1819, pp. 85, 92-93 ; S. J-, p- 112.
ZSH. /., 1823, pp 241-243, 250, 259.
*9S. J., 1837, PP- 459, 463, 537-
*°H. /., 1826, p. 122; 5\ /., p. 108; H. J., 1843, PP- 482, 522, 540, 545;
H. /., 1843, PP- 532-533; S. J., 1847, PP- 381, 384; H. /., 1847, pp. 460-461,
473; H. J., 1847, P- 462; S. /., p. 329-
40 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [40
As first submitted to the council they proposed to vacate the
town plats without the consent of the owners of the land.41 In
1839 two acts were passed which, as first proposed, attempted
to dispose of public property of two towns. The first was in
relation to the streets and alleys of Bloomington. The second,
in relation to the public square of Golconda. In both cases the
council held that this public land had become vested in the
owners of real property in the resepective towns.42
The violation of two other sections of the Bill of Rights was
prevented by the council of revision. In 1821, in the act estab-
lishing courts of probate, imprisonment of debtors was virtually
authorized. The council held this to be in violation of section
15 of the Bill of Rights which provided that "no person shall
be imprisoned for debt unless upon refusal to deliver up his
estate for the benefit of his creditors, in such manner as shall
be prescribed by law," etc.43 The second case was in 1840. It
was a violation of section 11 of the Bill of Rights which provided
that ' ' no man 's property shall be taken or applied to public use,
without the consent of his representatives in the general assem-
bly, nor without just compensation being made to him." The
bill referred to authorized one Henry A. Cleveland to build a
toll bridge across the Winnebago swamp. It granted him per-
mission to use the soil, stone, and timber on the land in building
the bridge. The council argued that if the land belonged to Mr.
Cleveland it was absurd to think it necessary to grant him per-
mission to use the material. If, on the other hand, the land be-
longed to a private individual or to the United States the gen-
eral assembly was clearly exceeding its powers.44
Vetoes on Grounds of Policy. — The vetoes made on grounds
of policy or expediency numbered forty-one. Twenty-nine of
these, or nearly three-fourths, came before 1830. They ran as
high as eight, nine, and five, in the first, fifth, and sixth general
assemblies respectively. From 1830 onward they usually ran
from one to two for each general assembly. During the whole
period only two assemblies, the ninth and the fifteenth, escaped
the veto power on grounds of policy.
The messages in this class have been grouped into sub-
41//. /., 1839, pp. 361, 404, 412; S. ]., p. 354; 5". /., 1841, pp. 93, 102;
H. ]., p. 149.
*2S. /., 1839, PP. 168, 179, 262; H. I., 1839, pp. S5i, 556, 562.
*35". /., 1821, pp. 165, 167, 170.
4*S. /., 1840, pp. 134, 200.
41] THE COUNCIL OP REVISION 41
classes according to the subjects with which the bills have dealt.
No attempt will be made to discuss all of these vetoes ; but the
most important and the resulting policies will be noted.
Two vetoes will be discussed here as lying on the border line
between constitutional objections and objections on the grounds
of policy. They were disapproved because they were held to
encroach upon or burden unnecessarily the judicial department.
They have been classed under policy vetoes on account of the
fact that while they may be regarded as unconstitutional in a
broad sense they would doubtless, nevertheless, have been ac-
cepted by the American courts as within the legislative power.
The first of these was a bill of 1819 which proposed to regu-
late and define the duties of the justices of the supreme court.
The bill assigned certain of the justices to hold circuit courts in
circuits to which justices had been assigned who had practiced in
those courts until the business in which these justices were con-
cerned should have been disposed of. The council suggested that
this would unnecessarily burden the justices so assigned and
that the objection to having a judge sit in a case in which he
had been interested as a practising attorney could be remedied
by requiring the justices to change circuits until such business
should be disposed of. In the second place the council called
attention to the inexpediency of too many terms, — suggesting
that two terms of circuit court would be sufficient.45
The second bill of this class was in 1841. The general as-
sembly passed over the veto ' ' an act to reorganize the judiciary ' '
of the state. It provided for the repeal of the existing cir-
cuit courts. It divided the state into nine circuits. It assigned
a justice of the supreme court to each of these, — the act increas-
ing the number of supreme justices from four to nine. The coun-
cil objected that the act would overburden the supreme court.
Under the proposed act it would be required to perform the fol-
lowing functions : it would still be required to act as a council of
revision ; it would still perform its functions as a supreme court ;
and in addition the justices would be required to hold all the cir-
cuit courts of the state. All of this would be physically impossible.
It was pointed out that the duties of the supreme court were
sufficiently important to warrant granting it sufficient time to
mature its opinions. As a council of revision it would be neces-
sary for the members of the court to be at the capital when the
legislature was in session. Suppose an extra session were to be
™S. /., 1819, p. 202 ; H. J., pp. 179, 191-192-
42 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [42
called while the judges were on the circuits They would be
obliged to dismiss court to attend the legislative session.46
One of the first lines of public policy owing its inception to
the council of revision was in regard to quasi-public franchises.
During the very first session of the general assembly three bills
were passed authorizing the construction of toll bridges in va-
rious parts of the state. The council objected that there was
no time limit set for the duration of the franchises. They be-
lieved that the public interest required that a definite time limit
should be fixed when the privileges granted should expire. The
result was in each case a twenty year franchise.47
Five bills for the incorporation of towns and cities were dis-
approved on grounds of policy. The sessions of 1824-1825
passed an act to incorporate the town of Mount Carmel. It was
objected to because there was no limitation to the taxing powers
of the trustees.48 Four years later ' ' an act to incorporate the in-
habitants of such towns as may wish to be incorporated" was
vetoed. The bill was defective in several ways. The main ob-
jections were that it encouraged promiscuous incorporation of
towns without regard for their needs, and that it did not even
provide for ascertaining whether a majority of the people wanted
to be incorporated.49 The act of 1837 incorporating the city of
Alton was disapproved because it gave the municipal court too
wide jurisdiction.50 In 1843 an act to incorporate the town of
Winchester in Scott county was disapproved. In the first place
it gave the trustees too large and indefinite powers. They were
authorized "to do and perform all acts which may be done or
performed by natural persons. ' ' In the second place it proposed
to incorporate a good deal of territory that was simply farm
land. It was pointed out that great injustice might be done the
farmers if forced to live up to town or city regulations.51 At
the same session a bill for an act to incorporate the city of Me-
tropolis in Johnson county was disapproved. The council pointed
out that the general law of municipal incorporation of 1831
was sufficient for this purpose. If not sufficient, it could be
amended. The desirability of uniformity in this respet was
465. /., 1841, pp. 257-272, 274; H. /., pp. 358-366.
47 S. /., 1819, pp. 182, 195; H. /., pp. 172-173, 182-183.
485\ /.. 1824-1825, pp. 159, 164, 165, 179, 196.
49H. /., 1829, p. 295. The law of 1831 required a two-thirds vote. See
Laws, pp. 82-87.
60S. /., 1837, PP- 124-125, 128, 137.
61S. /., 1843, pp. 456, 460, 468, 525; H. /., p. 511.
43] THE COUNCIL OF REVISION 43
pointed out. In addition they pointed out the fact that the bill
gave the board of trustees exclusive power to tax real estate.
This would exclude both the state and the county from taxing
such property.52
An examination of these vetoes discloses the fact that the
incorporation of municipalities was at that time in an experi-
mental stage. The general assembly was uncertainly feeling its
way. The council demonstrated its usefulness by calling atten-
tion to the need of definition and limitation of the powers of
municipalities, the need of maintaining some control by the state,
and the need of reasonable uniformity in incorporation.
Three bills dealing with internal improvements were disap-
proved by the council. Two were local and one general. The
two local acts were passed in 1827 and 1839 respectively. The
first was an act making appropriation for building certain
bridges in the so-called "bounty lands." It was disapproved
by the council because the financial condition of the state would
not warrant the expenditure at that time.53 The second was an
act to authorize St. Clair county to establish a ferry across the
Mississippi river. It was disapproved because the award of the
jury in condemnation proceedings was required to be based on
the value of the property taken and not on the ferry privilege.
In the second place it failed to provide for an appeal from the
award of the jury.5*
The one general act was passed in 1819. It provided for
"opening, improving, repairing and regulating highways," etc.
The council returned it with the suggestion that it be amended
so as to protect the public against persons who might attempt to
prevent roads from being opened up by obstructions and litiga-
tion.55
Two vetoes dealt with the question of the disposal of school
lands. In 1828 an act was passed providing for leasing the semi-
nary lands. The council objected on three main grounds: (1)
there was no adequate provision for the valuation of the lands ;
(2) the public was not protected against spoliation of the land;
and (3) the bill provided that the lessee might at his option ac-
quire full title to the land by payment of the capitalized rental
value at six per cent. During the same session, however, an act
was passed and approved providing for the sale of the seminary
lands. It is to be regretted that the council did not attempt to
52H. /., 1843, PP- 482, 523; III. Reports, 1842, II, p. 425. The series
here referred to is composed of reports of the executive department and
other officials, made to the General Assembly.
535. /., 1827, pp. 125 ff., 128, 167 ; Laws, p. 64.
B4//. /., 1838-39, PP. 564, 565 ; s. J., p- 469-
55//. /., 1819, pp. 174-175 ; s. /., p. 182.
44 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [44
prevent that also.56 The second case occurred in 1841. An act
was passed authorizing the sale of a certain school section. The
general law on the subject required that a petition to sell school
lands should be signed by three-fourths of the qualified voters
of the school township and that the population of the township
should be at least fifty. The bill as proposed abolished the re-
quirements as to the number of population. The council ob-
jected on the ground that there were far less than fifty peo-
ple in the township in question. They doubted that an impar-
tial board of valuation could be found. To meet the objec-
tions of the council the bill was amended so as to secure a board
of valuation from outside the township.57
Four bills dealing with courts, their jurisdiction and pro-
cedure, were disapproved. The first was in 1823, "an act extend-
ing the right of peremptory challenge of jurors." The council
held that the right of peremptory challenge of twenty jurors in
addition to the unlimited right of challenge for cause under the
existing law was sufficient. This was especially true in view of
the fact that challenge for cause had been liberally construed
by the courts. The bill also made it too easy to gain a change
of venue by a person accused of a capital crime. Under the ex-
isting law there was provision for a change of venue should the
judge be interested in the case. It also authorized the supreme
court to appoint some proper person to summon the jury, should
the sheriff or coroner be interested in the case. Considering all
these facts the council felt that sufficient guarantees of a fair
trial existed. They also urged that the evils arising out of a
right to a change of venue would be great. In all cases the delays
and difficulties would work greatly in favor of a guilty person,
while innocent persons would be interested in a speedy trial
without a change of venue.58
An act of 1829 was vetoed because it extended the jurisdic-
tion of justices of the peace without at the same time increasing
their power to award damages.59 In 1833 a bill "concerning
practice in courts of law" was disapproved because it would
lead to "serious evils in the administration of justice." Among
other things, this bill deprived a member of the supreme court
50H. /., 1829, p. 39; Laws, pp. 158-162.
"//. /., 1841, pp. 454, 455, 563-
3S5". /., 1823, pp. 230-232, 241, 285, 300, 311. For the present day prac-
tice see Hurd, op. cit., (1913), pp. 2479 ff. ; People v. Pfanschmidt, 262
///. 411.
^H. /., 1829, p. 337 5 S. J., pp. 285, 287.
45] THE COUNCIL OF REVISION 45
of a voice in the decisions in cases over which he had sat in the
circuit court. While section 1 of the bill granted a right of
appeal in all cases regardless of the amount involved, section 10
abrogated the right of appeal in divorce cases, which before
had existed as a matter of right.60 The last bill of this group to
be objected to by the council was a bill "to amend the several
laws in relation to practice in courts of law and chancery. ' ' One
of the sections objected to repealed the provision of an earlier
act providing for a method of authenticating evidence taken out-
side the state, without providing for a substitute. There were
other objections. But the most interesting fact of this message
is the fact that it winds up with an exhortation. The practice
of innovation in procedure, the assembly was told, is objection-
able unless indisputably necessary. As no such reasons were per-
ceived in this case the council disapproved the bill.61
The veto power was invoked five times in behalf of an ac-
ceptable policy in the matter of settlement of estates, especially
with reference to the protection of the interests of dependents.
In a veto message of 1819 disapproving an act to authorize the
executors of a certain Tuissant Dubois, deceased, to dispose of
his property, the council suggested that there ought to be some
safeguards against the abuse of the trust on the part of the ex-
ecutors.62 Two years later they objected to an act to provide for
the sale of the real estate of minors in certain cases. They held
that the notice required was too short and would therefore be
prejudicial to the interests of the minors, especially if they hap-
pened to reside outside the state.63 At the end of the session of
1823 a bill was passed authorizing the appointment of public ad-
ministrators. This bill was returned to the assembly at the be-
ginning of the session of November 15, 1824. The council ob-
jected that the bond required of the administrators provided
for by the bill was not sufficient. They believed that a bond
should be fixed in each case of administration and should vary
in amount with the value of the estate. They also believed that
the existing laws were sufficient for the purpose sought to be
accomplished by the bill.64
Two bills were vetoed, each entitled "an act relative to wills
and testaments, executors and administrators .and the settlement
*°H. J., 1833, pp. 687, 707, 723, 724.
61S. /., 1840, p. 234.
62//. /., 1819, pp. in, 112; S. J., p. 123.
«3//. /., 1821, p. 195 ; S. J., pp. 104, 105.
64S. J., 1824, pp. 5, 25 ; H. /., pp. 107, 203.
46 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [46
of estates." The first was in 1827. The council could not ap-
prove this bill because it ' ' contains numerous objectionable feat-
ures, and in some cases has made such a total change in some of
our existing laws, as to overturn some of the long settled, and
as we believe, highly approved principles of the common law."
One section was objected to because it "would be productive of
highly injurious consequences to the peace and harmony of the
married state, by introducing separate and conflicting interests
between husband and wife. ' ' Another section should be amended
so as to give the wife her share of the personal property of her
deceased husband after the payment of the debts.65 The other
bill was passed during the following session. In the veto message
the council expressed strong approval of the bill in general. It
objected, however, to a section which deprived the widow of her
right of dower in her husband's real estate if he should die in-
solvent. The council held that the right of dower was so ancient
and almost sacred that it should not be abolished. They asserted
in their message of disapproval that this was the first time in the
history of the United States that it had been threatened.60
It has been noted above that many bills for the relief of pri-
vate persons became laws without the approval of the council of
revision. The only bill for strictly private relief vetoed was in
1845. A certain Lovell Kimball had received permission of the
Illinois Canal Commission to cut timber on the canal lands for
the construction of a mill. But Kimball had in addition taken
a number of trees and cut them up for sale. The circuit court
of La Salle county had fined him $260. Governor Ford happened
to have been the judge who fined Mr. Kimball. Now the general
assembly proposed to return $200 to the latter. The council ob-
jected that the remission of the penalty would make it impos-
sible to protect the canal lands against trespassers.67 • Two bills
for the relief of a public official were disapproved. In 1823
Wm. A. Baird, a sheriff in St. Clair county, in compliance with
a legislative act released a prisoner convicted of forgery. The
party injured by the forgery sued Baird but lost in all the
courts. The general assembly of 1827 proposed to reimburse Mr.
Baird to the extent of $100 for the expenses he had been obliged
to pay in defending himself. The council disapproved. They
held that every officer takes his office with the chance of being
sued for performing lawful acts. To reimburse him would set a
™S. ]., 1827, p. 328.
««5. /., 1829, pp. 283, 286, 288.
«7//. /., 1845, pp. 601-602.
47] THE COUNCIL OP REVISION 47
dangerous precedent. This same bill was introduced in the fol-
lowing general assembly and again disapproved, the council call-
ing attention to their former veto and seeing no reason why they
should change their attitude.68
In addition to the bills discussed above a number of others
were disapproved on various grounds of expediency and policy.
Few of them seem to be of sufficient importance to merit indi-
vidual consideration. Only three will be given here. Two of
them were passed by the general assembly of 1827. The first
was an act to regulate inns and taverns and for other purposes.
The council took a stand for curtailment of the drinking evil.
They held ' ' that granting licenses to dram-shops, tippling houses,
and groceries, to sell spirituous liquors by a less quantity than
one quart have a direct tendency to encourage drunkenness and
immorality. ' ' The proper line of policy would be to remove such
temptations as far as possible.69
The second bill referred to was an act to ascertain and sur-
vey the northern boundary of the state. The council objected
to the bill on two grounds. In the first place it did not provide
for the payment of the commissioners who were to perform the
work on behalf of the state. That was intended to be left for a
future general assembly to provide. The council did not believe
that it was possible to get competent men to do the work under
those circumstances. In the second place they objected to the
method of choice of the commissioners. The bill provided that
they were to be chosen by the general assembly. The council be-
lieved that the method best calculated to insure the selection of
real experts was to leave the matter of their selection to the exec-
utive. They pointed out the fact that that had been the pro-
cedure in 1821 when the line between Illinois and Indiana had
been run, and that a similar method had invariably been pursued
by the national government.70
The last bill to be considered in this group was an act to di-
vorce certain persons. The council held it inexpedient to divorce
persons by legislative act. All the questions involved are judicial
and ought to be decided by a court.71
Vetoes of Defective Bills. — The third general class of vetoes
were made on account of defective bills. There were in all
thirty-three such bills disapproved. These vetoes, like the vetoes
«*S. /., 1827, pp. 260, 261 ; H. /., 1829, p. 265.
™S. J., 1827, pp. 240, 245.
70/f. /., 1827, pp. 430-431, 433, 456, 462; S. J., pp. 276, 283, 289.
"S1. /., 1831, pp. 327, 400-401, 411 ; Laws, pp. 71-72.
48 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [48
on constitutional grounds, were scattered well over the whole
period of the existence of the council of revision. Only two gen-
eral assemblies, 1836-1838 and 1846-1848, escaped without any
vetoes of this class. The usual number was two or three per ses-
sion. Once, in 1839, it ran as high as six. Only two such bills
were passed over the veto. The first was an act of 1821 ordering
the United States to pay certain fees for the keeping of federal
prisoners in state jails.72 The second was in 1835. It was the
"act providing for the election of county recorders and survey-
ors" referred to above. It was defective in several particulars.
Two days after passing this bill over the veto the general assem-
bly passed a second act remedying every defect pointed out by
the council.73
Though the class of defective bills is somewhat large, it is
not necessary to discuss these bills in any great detail. They may
be roughly divided into half a dozen groups. Ten may
be classified as generally ill-considered and hasty. They were
often based on misapprehension or lack of information. Often
likely to produce unexpected and undesirable results.74 Two
bills may be classed as superfluous — one wholly, and one in
part.75 Four were vetoed because they conflicted either with
legislation already passed or were contradictory within their own
provisions.76 Three were vetoed because the council considered
that they were unlikely to accomplish the purpose for which
they were passed. In one case, in fact, delay in the passage of the
bill in question had made the performance of the acts required
therein impossible.77 There were seven vetoes on the grounds of
ambiguities, such as vague terms and phrases. For example, a
bill in 1825 carried in one of its sections the word "aforesaid."
But since there was no antecedent for the word the effect in the
opinion of the council would have been to render the whole act
void. In 1845 a bill was presented carrying certain provisions
concerning corporations. It provided for the forfeiture of the
72H. J., 1821, p. 107; 5". /., pp. 61, 84, 109, 112.
73H. /., 1835, pp. 408-410, 449; S. J., pp. 385, 454; Laii'S, pp. 61-62,
165-167.
7*H. J., 1819, pp. 176, 182; H. J., 1823, pp. 273-274; S. J., 1829, p. 284;
S. /., 1831, p. 323; H. /., 1835, pp. 61, 408-410; H. /., 1839-40, pp. 338-339;
H. J., 1838-39, pp. 603-604.
75£T. /., 1821, p. 107; S. J., 1845, p. 453.
785. /., 1827, p. 219; S. J., 1835, p. 525; S. J., 1840-41, p. 149; H. J.,
1838-1839, p. 452.
"/f../., 1825, p. 190; H. J., 1843, pp. 546-547; H. /., 1845, P. 597-
49] THE COUNCIL OP REVISION 49
charters of "any corporation" which should commit certain
acts. The council pointed out that the phrase ' ' any corporation ' '
was broad enough to include cities and towns and perhaps even
counties. Attention has already been called to the act of 1821
requiring the "United States" to pay certain fees, and the act
of 1827 confounding the terms "under-tenant" and "assignee
of a lessee."78 Seven bills were vetoed on account of omissions
either due to legislative inadvertence or errors on the part of the
clerical force.79
GENERAL ESTIMATE OF THE OPERATION OF THE COUNCIL OF REVISION
Looking back on the period from 1818-1848, the council
of revision must be said to have filled very creditably an im-
portant place in the constitutional system of the State of Illi-
nois. This is true whether we regard it from the standpoint of
its control over legislation or whether we look closer into the
character of the veto messages themselves. More bills were
vetoed relative to the number of laws passed than in New York,
the only other state in the Union that has had a council of revis-
ion. In the latter state 128 bills were disapproved as compared
with 6,590 passed, or somewhat less than two per cent. In Illi-
nois 104 bills were disapproved as compared with 3,158 enacted
into law, or somewhat more than three per cent. In New York
17 bills, or fourteen per cent of those disapproved, were passed
over the veto. In Illinois only eleven per cent were passed over
the veto.80 Not only were relatively few bills passed over the
veto, but as we have seen only two of these were bills of any
importance whatever.
An examination into the reasons given by the council for
disapproving bills has disclosed the fact that they prevented
several important violations of the constitutions of both the
United States and the state of Illinois. They prevented the
enactment of a number of laws which would have been detri-
mental to the public good and by their dissent laid the founda-
tion for several beneficial lines of policy. They halted many
™H. J., 1821, p. 107; 51. /., 1821, p. 152; H. J., 1823, p. 298; S. L, 1825,
p. 165; H. J., 1827, pp. 388-389; H. J., 1839, p. 545; S. J., 1845, p. 6.
™H. /., 1825, pp. 78, 299; H. J., 1827, pp. 446, 351, 352; H. J., 1833,
p. 709; H. /., 1839, p. 215 ; H. J., 1843, p. 317.
^Proceedings and Debates, New York Constitutional Convention, 1821,
pp. 52-57. See also Charles Z. Lincoln, Constitutional History of New
York, Vol. I, pp. 743 ff.
50 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [50
defective bills and caused them to be amended, thereby doubt-
less saving the state great expense and inconvenience.
The messages of the council are characterized by ability
and insight. The uniform excellence of its opinions may per-
haps be ascribed partially to the fact that it was a continuous
body. While there were a number of changes in personnel from
time to time due to various reasons, there were several justices
who held office for terms long enough to give stability to the
council. Those who held the longest were Thomas C. Browne
from 1818 to 1848, William Wilson, from 1819 to 1848, and
Samuel D. Lockwood, from 1825 to 1848.81 But it must be re-
membered that they worked under conditions quite different from
those existing today. Fewer bills were passed. There was less
rush at the end of the session. Then the number of bills disap-
proved after adjournment was negligible. Now, as we shall see,
ninetjr-five per cent of the vetoes are made after the adjournment
of the general assembly.
As would naturally be expected, the fact that the members
of the supreme court constituted together with' the governor a
council to revise bills resulted in few bills being held uncon-
stitutional by the supreme court as such. During this whole
period only four laws were declared unconstitutional by the
court. Two of these involved the national constitution and two
involved the constitution of Illinois. One of these was held
unconstitutional partly because it had not been submitted to the
council for approval. Another, the act incorporating the State
Bank of Illinois, had been passed over the veto. But two of the
acts declared unconstitutional had been approved by the council
of revision.82
There is no evidence pointing to a lack of harmony and
cooperation between the governors and the other members of
the council. In very few instances was the governor found with
the minority. Very often he seems to have cast the deciding
vote. In only one case does he stand out taking materially dif-
ferent ground from the rest of the council, namely, in the veto
of the famous internal improvements act of 1837, discussed
81Under the constitution of 1818 judges held during good behavior,
with the provision that the terms of judges appointed before the end of
the first legislative session held after January i, 1824, should expire at
the end of that session. In re-constituting the court in 1825 two of the
judges, Browne and Wilson, were re-elected.
82A. B. Wright, Judicial Control over Legislation in Illinois, (unpub-
lished thesis) pp. 9-15.
51] THE COUNCIL OP REVISION 51
above. Governor Duncan concurred with the rest of the council
in the opinion that the bill was unconstitutional as indicated.
In addition he objected to the policy of committing the state to
this huge enterprise. This fact has led to a later impression that
if he had had the veto power alone, the state would have been
saved from the internal improvement fiasco. It is almost certain,
however, that in that case his veto would have been overruled.
The council of revision, however, was not destined to con-
tinue a part of our constitutional system. The same situation
had arisen here in 1848 that caused New York to abandon it in
1821. The purely judicial work of the members of the council
demanded all of their time. This was especially true after 1841
when they were required to hold circuit courts as well. The
Democrats were distrustful of the supreme court. It had been
"Whig up to 1841. In that year the Democrats packed it by
increasing its members from four to nine. In addition they
loaded them with the task of all the circuit court work. But
though they controlled the court for the time being they wrere
not willing to permit it to retain the veto power. They favored
a strong veto in the hands of the governor.83 The result Avas the
abolition of the council of revision by the constitutional con-
vention of 1848.
83Davidson and Stuve, History of Illinois, p. 544; Illinois State Regis-
ter, July 23, 1847.
52
THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS
II. TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF BILLS VETOED BY THE
COUNCIL OF REVISION, THE ACTION TAKEN UPON VETOES, THE REASONS
FOR VETOES, AND THE NUMBER OF LAWS ENACTED, 1818-1848.
Bills disap-
Action on bills
Reasons for
proved
disapproved
disapproval
*
_1_J
•V
t
General
-a
<u
3
O *-"
u
en
t/1
o
•o
^
B
V
Assembly
rt
J3 a
1 |
o
0.
1
IS
CD
(U
g
o.
0,
O
•*-»
3
JJ
o
en
>
& a
Oi
rt
en
3
O
<u
en >
s
o
p
en
£
&
'—
<u
Q
03
rt
Q
E
C/3
O
"
CJ
1818-1820
159
O
12
8
4
I
II
o
I
8
2
1820-1822
90
4
9
7
2
4
5
o
3
3
3
1822-1824
123
o
5
3
2
o
5
o
i
2
2
1824-1826
IOI
o
8
4
4
o
7
I
2
2
3
1826-1828
89
o
16
10
6
3
9
4
3
9
4
1828-1830
64
I
6
4
2
o
3
3
o
5
i
1830-1832
137
2
2
o
2
o
2
o
0
i
i
1832-1834
228
I
2
2
O
o
I
i
o
i
i
1834-1836
319
14
4
3
I
2
I
i
I
o
3
1836-1838
335
21
3
I
2
O
3
0
2
i
0
1838-1840
403
22
12
II
I
0
6
6
4
2
6
1840-1842
282
O
8
2
6
I
3
4
3
3
2
1842-1844
34i
2
7
6
I
0
3
4
3
2
2
1844-1846
333
4
6
2
4
0
o
5
i
2
3
1846-1848
154
o
4
3
i
O
3
i
4
O
o
Totals....
3JS8
7i
104
66
38
II
62
30
28
41
33
This list includes,
on the statute books,
revision.
of course, only the bills that actually found a place
with or without the approval of the council of
CHAPTEE III
THE SUSPENSIVE VETO UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
• OF 1848
Strictly speaking, the governor of Illinois did not have the
veto power until 1848. Despite the fact that New York was about
to drop it (in 1821), Illinois in 1818 had adopted the council of
revision plan under which the governor was obliged to share
the veto power with the members of the supreme court. That
this worked well we have already seen. But the increasing bur-
den of the duties of the supreme court as such made a change
imperative. The present chapter will be devoted to a discussion
of the veto power during the period from 1848 to 1870. It may
properly be called a transition period, during which a weak
veto power was vested in the hands of the governor. It demon-
strated the need of, and prepared the way for, a strengthening
of that power in 1870 and again in 1884 which has made the veto
power of the governor of Illinois one of the most effective in the
Union.
THE FORM OF VETO POWER IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1848
An examination of the constitution of the rest of American
states at the time of the adoption of the Illinois constitution of
1848 reveals the fact that eight out of the whole number had no
veto power. They were : Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina,
Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
The rest, twenty in number, all gave their governors a more or
less effective veto power. A brief summary of these provisions
on the basis of the vote required to override the veto and the
time allowed the governor for the consideration of bills may
serve as a background for the study of the Illinois provision
adopted in that year. One state (Connecticut) required only a
majority of those present to override the veto; eight (Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey,
and Vermont) required a majority of the total membership;
four (Iowa, Michigan, New York, and Texas) required two-
thirds of those present; and seven (Georgia, Louisiana, Maine,
53
54 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [54
Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania)
required two-thirds of the total membership.
The time allowed the governors for the consideration of
bills varied from three to ten days. Three states (Arkansas,
Connecticut and Iowa) allowed only three days; ten states (Ala-
bama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, Texas, and Vermont) allowed five; one
(Mississippi) allowed six days; and six states (Kentucky, Louisi-
ana, Michigan, Missouri, New York, and Pennsylvania) allowed
ten days. Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, and Pennsyl-
vania also provided that vetoes, the return of which had been
prevented by the adjournment of the legislature, should be re-
turned within the first three days of the following session, or the
bills in question were to become effective without the governor's
signature.
At this time the four states with the strongest veto power
were Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New York. All
four allowed their governors ten days for the consideration of
bills. Louisiana and Pennsylvania required a vote of two-thirds
of the total membership of each house to override the veto. Michi-
gan and New York permitted it to be done by two-thirds of those
present.
In the Illinois constitutional convention of 1848 there was
never any doubt that the council of revision would be discontin-
ued. There seems to have been no sentiment at all for its reten-
tion. On the other hand, several resolutions proposing altera-
tions in the constitution contained provisions for its abolition.1
Mr. Kitchell, a member of the convention, objected to the pre-
sentation of too many questions at once. He urged that they
be presented one at a time. ' ' For example, let it be the abolition
of the council of revision. There is probably not a member
not prepared to discuss and vote on that proposition. ' '2
However, there was considerable diversity of opinion regard-
ing the merits of a veto power in the hands of the governor.
On the one hand there were the customary speeches against the
power of one man to thwart the will of the pec~'e. It was a
vestige of royalty and unrepublican.3 On the other side it was
urged that the tyranny of one is less dangerous than the tyranny
of many; that the governor is more nearly the representa-
of the Constitutional Convention of 1847, pp. 19, 25, 27, 30, 41.
-State Register, June 18, 1847.
sState Register, July 23, 1847.
55] THE SUSPENSIVE VETO OF 1848 55
tive of the people than is the legislature ; that he could be held
to more definite responsibility; and that as a matter of fact it
had worked very satisfactorily in the state.4
Perhaps only a small percentage of the convention would
have favored the abolition of the veto power altogether. On the
question of granting a strong or weak veto power to the gov-
ernor the members were nearly evenly divided. On the whole,
the Democrats seem to have favored the former while the
Whigs seem to have favored the latter.5
The committee of ten appointed to draft the article on the
executive was headed by Samuel D. Lockwood, who had been
a member of the supreme court and the council of revision since
1825. On the 18th of June they reported to the convention.
Section 20 of the article reported proposed to vest the veto
power in the hands of the governor. It required a two-thirds
vote of those present to override the veto.8
In the convention itself section 20 had a rather checkered ex-
perience. It was considered in committee of the whole on the
16th and 17th of July. On the 16th an amendment proposed
by Mr. Cross of Winnebago, providing that a majority of the
total membership of each house of the legislature should be suf-
ficient to override the veto, was rejected.7 On the following day
an amendment offered by Mr. Minshall was accepted. It re-
quired a three-fifths vote of the total membership to override the
veto.8 But on August llth at the final consideration of the re-
port of the committee of the whole by the convention, it was
again amended. This amendment, offered by Mr. J. M. Davis,
lowered the vote required for repassage from three-fifths to a
majority of the total membership.9
The veto section as finally adopted by the convention is
found in section 21 of Article IV of the constitution of 1848.
It provides :
Every bill which shall have passed the senate and the house of rep-
resentatives shall, befort it becomes a law, be presented to the governor;
if he approves, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his
objections to the house in which it shall have originated; and the said
house shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to
*Ibid.
5Ibid; Davidson and Stuve, op. cit., p. 544.
^Journal, pp. 63-64.
7 Ibid., p. 176; State Register, July 23, 1847.
^Journal, pp. 177-178.
9Ibid., pp. 322-323; Illinois State Register, Aug. 20.
56 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [56
reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, a majority of the members
elected shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the
objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered;
and if approved by a majority of the members elected, it shall become a
law, notwithstanding the objections of the governor; but in all such cases
the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, to be entered
on the journals of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be
returned by the governor within 10 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 general assembly shall, by their adjournment,
prevent its return, in which case the said bill shall be returned on the first
day of the meeting of the general assembly, after the expiration of said
10 days, or be a law.10
THE USE OP THE VETO POWER, 1848-1870
An examination of the provision just quoted shows that it
provided merely a suspensive veto. Article III section 21 pro-
vided that no bill shall become without the concurrence of a ma-
jority elected to each house of the general asembly. Should the
governor object to the passage of any bill the same majority
would be able to pass it over his veto. The most that he could
do would be to force a reconsideration.
Nevertheless, the governor's hands had been strengthened.
The veto power had not been changed essentially from what it
was under the council of revision. But it had all been placed in
his hands. He was not obliged to share it with the members
of the supreme court who might outvote him in the council. It
is curious to note that Augustus C. French, the first governor
under the constitution of 1848, was under exactly the opposite
impression. This is the more remarkable when we recall that
he had already served two years, from 1846 to 1848, and there-
fore was familiar with the veto power under the council of revi-
sion. In his inaugural address of January 2nd, 1849, he said,
alluding to the veto power : —
I am not unmindful of the fact that by the virtual destruction of the
veto power, by a provision of the new constitution, there remains to the
executive of the state but the merest shadow of power or influence by
which to arrest the passage of any law, however obnoxious it may be in
itself, or great the damage it may threaten to the public interest. Yet the
limited agency still allowed the executive in the enactment of laws, and his
accountability to the people for its faithful discharge, require of him a
no less conscientious performance of this duty than what is reasonably
expected from the more active and efficient department of the1 law making
10Thorpe, II, pp. 997-998; Kurd, op. cit., p. XLIII.
57] THE SUSPENSIVE VETO OF 1848 57
power. There is also associated with the opinion here expressed the
gratifying reflection that if my views fail to harmonize with those of the
people and their representatives they can form no serious hindrance to
those of the latter in any attempt made to carry them through.11
Extent of the Use of the Veto Power, 1 848-1870 .—That
the veto power under the constitution of 1848 was not so weak
as depicted by Governor French is disclosed by a study of its
use during the period from 1848 to 1870. During this period
of twenty-two years exactly one hundred bills were returned to
the general assembly by the governors. Fifty-one were returned
to the house of representatives while forty-nine were returned to
the senate.
The distribution of these bills shows a remarkable fact.
During the first twenty years they ran very evenly. There was
never a session without a veto. They usually ran from one to
three for each general assembly. In 1859 and 1865, however,
they ran as high as four and seven respectively. When we come
to Governor Palmer's administration the story is quite
different. During the legislative session of 1869 alone, seventy-
two vetoes were made, or nearly three-fourths of the whole num-
ber made during the twenty-two year period under consideration.
Compared with the number of laws enacted from 1848 to
1870, but few bills were disapproved. The total number of laws
enacted was 7510. On this basis the number disapproved was
something like one and one-third per cent. It will be recalled
that under the council of revision it was a little over three and
a third per cent. In fact it does not run higher than four and
a half per cent even in 1869 when seventy-two vetoes were made
In that year alone 1573 laws were enacted by the general assem-
bly.
Two vetoes were withdrawn, both in 1849. Both bills, one a
senate bill and the other a house bill, had been returned to the
general assembly by Governor French in each case in response
to resolutions of the house in which the bill had not originated.
It appears that certain promoters had secured the incorporation
of the Illinois Coal Company. This company had secured a
practical monopoly under the false pretense that certain other
companies were great monopolies. The bill had originated in
the house and had been passed in the senate. In the meantime
a senate bill incorporating the Illinoistown Railroad Company
had passed both houses. This latter company would be a compet-
itor of the Illinois Coal Company. The friends of the coal com-
. /., 1849, pp. 8 ff.
58 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [58
pany now sought to defeat the railroad company's charter. The
house of representatives was induced to adopt a resolution call-
ing upon the governor to return the bill to the senate on the
ground that the house had ' ' in haste and without consideration ' '
adopted certain amendments to the bill. The senate agreed to
the said amendments and had refused to return the bill to the
house to enable that body to correct its error. The senate now
in turn requested the governor to return the house bill incor-
porating the Illinois Coal Company. In both cases the governor
acceded "to preserve that courtesy and harmony which ought to
exist between the several departments of the government." The
outcome was a joint resolution requesting the governor to ap-
prove both bills, "the several resolutions of the two houses re-
questing their return to the contrary notwithstanding."12
Effectiveness of the Veto Power, 1848-1870. — To deter-
mine the effectiveness of the governor's veto power it will be
necessary to study the fate of the bills disapproved. It will be
recalled that Governor French had been under the impression
that the veto power had been destroyed. An examination of the
facts in the case shows this to have been very much exaggerated.
In fact, prior to the legislative session of 1869, out of the twenty-
eight bills returned by the governor only two were passed over
the veto. The first was in 1851 and the second in 1865. But
during the session of 1869 the number passed over was seven-
teen as compared with seventy-two returned, or about one-fourth
For the whole period from 1848 to 1870 the number passed over
the veto was just short of twenty per cent. It will be recalled
that during the preceding period it had been something over ten
per cent.
A large number of the bills passed over the veto during
this period were of great importance. The first was a house bill
of 1851 establishing a "general system of banking." Governor
French was a Democrat and opposed to paper money. He had
warned against wild-cat banking in both his messages of 1849 and
1851, and had sounded a warning that the veto would be used.13
The bill when it reached the governor was duly disapproved,
whereupon it was passed over the veto by the vote of 39 to 30 in
the house of representatives and 13 to 11 in the senate.14 Accord-
ing to Article X section 5 of the constitution, banking acts were to
12H. /., 1849, pp. 477-4/8, 482, 510; 5\ /., pp. 375, 3/8.
13H. /., 1849, pp. 12 ff ; Ibid., 1851, pp. 18 ff.
14//. /., 1851, pp. 474-479; S. /., p. 421.
59] THE SUSPENSIVE VETO OP 1848 59
be submitted to the people for approval or rejection before they
were to go into effect. This act was submitted in the fall of 1851
and ratified by a substantial majority.15
The second bill pased over the governor' disapproval was in
1865. It was the famous act ' ''Concerning Horse Kailways in
the City of Chicago." Governor Oglesby disapproved it as a
violation of the obligation of contract. The corporation was
doing business by virtue of an agreement with the city of Chi-
cago, ratified and made binding by legislative acts of 1859 and
1861. Under this agreement the city of Chicago was free to buy
the property of the company at an appraised value at the end
of twenty-five years. The bill before the governor proposed
among other things to extend the corporate life and rights of the
company for ninety-nine years. There were several objections.
The bill granted a monopoly. It incorporated into the act and
made them binding for the whole term of ninety-nine years "all
acts or deeds of transfer of rights, privileges or franchises be-
tween the corporators named in this act, or any two of them. ' '
The governor objected that these acts and deeds were unknown.
They might be both illegal and unconstitutional for all he knew.
"When private acts and deeds are to be given by force of law
they should be definitely known." The provisions with regard
to regulation and rate making consistenly favored the company
as against the city. The governor objected that it should have
been the other way. Under cover of a pretense to reenact a
prohibition against the common council of Chicago it did the
very opposite by authorizing the council to provide for the con-
struction of railroads on certain streets. The chief objection
here was that the council could act only with the consent of the
traction company. If the council was to have control of the
streets, it should not be made to share that control with a pri-
vate corporation. The bill was passed over the veto by a vote
of 55 to 22 in the house of representatives and 18 to 5 in the sen-
ate.16
»
"Message of Governor French, Jan. 4, 1853 ; Dowrie, Banks in Illinois
Before 1863, p. 139. It may be noted that in spite of the defects pointed
out the act worked very well. Up to 1861 only fourteen banks had failed.
In only one case had the notes not been redeemed at par, and in that case
the loss was only 3 per cent. See message of Governor Wood, 1861,
H. ]., pp. 20 ff.
16/f. /., 1865, pp. 562-566, 593, 597; S. /., pp. 411-416. It has taken
Chicago practically half a century to regain the ground lost by this one
act. See John A. Fairlie, Quarterly Journal of Economics, XXI, pp. 371-
60 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [60
During the legislative session of 1869 seventeen bills were
passed over Governor Palmer's disapproval. Five were bills
authorizing unorganized localities to subscribe for railroad
stock.17 Two were bills authorizing Bloomington and Joliet re-
spectively to aid private corporations in the establishment of
manufacturing concerns.18 Two acts, one local and the other gen-
eral, made discrimination in the matter of taxation in favor of
communities which had subscribed to railroad stock.19 Four were
acts regulating the fees of local officers.20 Three acts of minor
importance, two local and one general, need not be discussed
here.21 Finally, an act granting some 1050 acres of the Chicago
Lake Front to the Illinois Central Railroad for a small part of
its actual value was passed over the veto. It was passed over
the veto by a vote of 52 to 31 in the house of representatives
and 14 to 11 in the senate.22
It may be of interest to note that if the constitution had
required a two-thirds vote instead of a majority, eleven of the
nineteen bills would have failed to pass over the veto. This
number would have included most of the important acts. The
only very important act that would still have been passed over
was the Chicago traction act of 1865.
During the period of 1818 to 1848 it was customary to amend
bills to meet the objections of the council of revision. Thus
about two-thirds were amended while only one-third were aban-
doned. On the other hand, during the period now under con-
sideration, it was not customary to amend the bill to meet the
governor's objections. In fact this was done only once, and that
in a case where the house in which the bill had originated re-
403; Blair v. Chicago, 201 [7. S. 400 (1906). The court in Blair v.
Chicago did not hold the act in violation of contract. It held that it did
not clearly extend the term of the franchise to 99 years.
17 H. J., 1869, III, pp. 537, 639, 640, 647, 648, 692; S. J., II, pp. 845,
849, 882-884, 971, 976.
1SS. J., 1869, I, p. 949, II, PP. 75, 926-927, 952; H. /., II, p. 589, HI,
P- 7Si.
™S. /., 1869, II, pp. 871-876, 883-884; H. J., Ill, pp. 659-693-
™H. J,, 1869, III, pp. 530, 633, 643, 747-748; S. J., II, pp. 932-933,
961, 966.
21H. /., 1869, III, pp. 282, 532, 543, 635, 641 ; S. J., II, pp. 828, 877,
952, 962.
22H. /., 1869, III, pp. 517 ff., 638; S. J., II, p. 922. It has taken Chicago
almost half a century to regain control of the Lake Front. See Theodore
K. Long, Lake Shore Reclamation Commission Report, Chicago (1912).
61] THE SUSPENSIVE VETO OF 1848 61
quested its return.23 All the other bills which were not passed
over the veto were dropped. In case it was desired to do any-
thing further to them the favored method seems to have been to
introduce substitutes.24
It is certain that a good deal of fraud and irregularity was
practiced from time to time in the passage of bills. It is not
the purpose here to recite a catalog of such acts, but merely to
call attention to a few cases that have come to the writer's no-
tice in this study of the use of the veto power. Attention has
already been called to the " unwarrantable means" used by the
friends of the Illinois Coal Company to defeat the charter of
the Belleville and Illinoistown Kailroad Company. In 1859 the
general assembly passed an apportionment act "gerrymander-
ing" the state for Democratic party advantage. The bill was
vetoed by Governor Bissell. Both parties committed irregular-
ities. The Republicans, knowing that the bill would be passed
over the veto if they remained at the session, absented them-
selves so as to break a quorum. The Democrats on their part re-
fused to accept the veto message of the governor, under the pre-
text that the assembly could not do business without a quorum,
intending that the bill should become law without approval.25
The governor won. The bill failed to become a law.
A most audacious trick was attempted in 1863. A senator
from the southern part of the state introduced a bill in January
purporting to grant a charter to the Wabash Railroad company.
Accepting his word that it was an ordinary charter, the senate
passed the bill without formal reading. In the house of repre-
sentatives it was likewise passed without reading and discussion
early in June. Instead of a bill to incorporate the Wabash Rail-
road Company, Governor Yates found a bill chartering an im-
mense corporation authorized to build and operate a street
railway on the principal streets and bridges in Chicago and its
suburbs.26
In 1869 Governor Palmer vetoed an act to amend the charter
of the city of Joliet. It provided that to be qualified to hold the
office of mayor or alderman the candidate should have been a
resident taxpayer and freeholder for at least two years preced-
ing the election. It also restricted the right to vote on any meas-
23H. /., 1869, III, pp. 609, 624, 650, 679; S1. /., II, p. 944.
24See S. J., 1861, pp. n, 18, 117 ; H. J., 1869, II, pp. 345, 445 ; III, p. 650;
5". /., 1869, II, pp. 736, 904; Private Laws, 1869, III, p. 599; IV, pp. 323-324.
25//. /., 1859, PP. 884 ff., 880-881.
Z6S. J., 1863, pp. 386 ff.
62 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [62
ure creating indebtedness to taxpayers and freeholders of one
years 's residence. The veto was sustained by the senate, to which
body the bill had been returned, by a vote of 21 to 1, Senator
Snapp of Joliet alone voting for repassage. Senator Snapp had
introduced the original bill. He now "put one over" on both
houses of the general assembly and the governor. The
veto had been made on March 8th. Two days later Senator
Snapp introduced the identical measure merely changing its
number from Senate Bill No. 531 to Senate Bill No. 843. It
passed unanimously three readings in each house on the same
day, and was duly signed by the unsuspecting governor.27
The constitution provided that bills disapproved, the return
of which had been prevented by the expiration of the ten days
allowed the governor for their consideration, should be returned
on the first day of the meeting of the general assembly after the
expiration of such ten day period or become effective. Ten bills
were thus returned, four by Governor Bissell, one by Governor
Yates, and five by Governor Oglesby. None of these bills were
passed over the veto. With one or two exceptions they were all
dropped from further consideration.28
Bills Becoming Law Without Approval. — Thirty seven acts
became effective without the governor's approval. The first of
these was in 1863, seven in 1867, and twenty nine in 1869. Six
were in the hands of the governor at the time of the adjourn-
ment of the general assembly. Thirty-one became effective dur-
ing the session. Eleven dealt with private incorporations.29
Twenty-two dealt with the incorporation of cities or towns.30
ANALYSIS OF THE VETO MESSAGES, 1848-1870
Classifying the bills returned on the basis of what seems the
most serious objections it has been found that thirty-eight were
vetoed on constitutional grounds, fifty-three on grounds of policy
or expediency, and eight on account of defectiveness. One was
«S. /., 1869, I, pp. 431, 608, 634, 683; II, pp. 380, 381, 445, 617; H. J.,
III, pp. 325, 554; Private Lavas, 1869, II, pp. 10-12.
2SH. J., 1859, pp. 58, 60; 1863, pp. 12-13, 349, 434-435J 1867, p. 12;
S. /., 1861, pp. 11-12, 18, 117; 1867, pp. ii, 12, 13, 14.
29Private Laws, 1867, I, p. 938; II, pp. 235, 455, 521, 794; Private Laws,
1869, I, pp. 290, 298; II, pp. 342, 828, 851, 871.
^Private Laws, 1867, I, P- 835; Private Laws, 1869, I, pp. 280, 385,
461, 524, 683; II, p. 180; III, pp. 548, 581, 604, 628, 685, 714, 723, 816, 839;
IV, pp. 70, 78, 1 08, 156, 174, 201.
63] THE SUSPEXSIVE VETO OF 1848 63
returned as having been signed inadvertently ; but no reasons
were given.31
Vetoes on Constitutional Grounds. — Of the thirty-eight bills
disapproved on constitutional grounds one was held to violate
the ordinance of 1787. This was an act providing for the incor-
poration of the Okaw River Navigation Company and granting
this company exclusive right to navigate the Okaw river for fifty
years. But this was in conflict with Article IV of the ordinance
of 1787, which provides among other things that "the navigable
waters leading into the Mississippi and Saint Lawrence, and the
carrying places between the same, shall be common highways,
and forever free, etc." In addition Governor Oglesby pointed
out that it was very poor policy to grant monopolies of this
sort.32
The largest number of vetoes on constitutional grounds in-
volved questions of taxation. Six were disapproved as author-
izing unequal taxation. Two of these dealt with railroad taxa-
tion. An act was passed in 1869 relating to the "Hamilton,
Lacon and Eastern Rairoad Company, and the local taxes thereon
in the counties of Livingston, La Salle, and Marshall." It pro-
vided that all taxes except state taxes, collected from the com-
pany on its whole line should be returned to the communities
that had subscribed to stock of the road, and in proportion to
the amount of their subscription. Governor Palmer objected that
this would be taking the property of one county and paying it
to another. ' ' That plainly can not be done. ' '33
A more obnoxious measure was passed the same year, how-
ever. It was the so-called "tax grab" act or, to quote its
title, "an act to fund and provide for paying the railroad debts
of counties, townships, cities and towns." It provided that all
taxes whether state or local assessed in these local units upon the
railroad property in question, except the two mill tax required
by the constitution for the payment of the state debt and the
state tax levied for the support of schools, should be devoted to
the payment of the bonds issued as subscription to stock. In
addition it provided that all state taxes assessed in these local
units in excess of the valuation of 1868 were likewise to be de-
voted to the payment of the bonds. It made the state the custo-
dian of these funds and pledged their application to the object
in question. Gevernor Palmer objected that the constitution pro-
315\ /., 1859, P- 582.
32/f. /., 1867, II, p. 211.
33-S\ /., 1869, II, pp. 883-884; H. /., Ill, p. 693.
64 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [64
vided that all taxes must be uniform throughout the state and
that the general assembly could not relieve any community from
paying its share. In addition it was objectionable in that it was
a step in the direction of state assumption of local debts.34
Four bills passed in 1869, in the opinion of the governor,
violated Article IX section 5 of the constitution, which provided
that the corporate authorities of counties, towns, etc., might be
vested with the power to tax for corporate purposes, but that
such taxes were to be uniform in respect to persons or property
within their jurisdiction. All these bills exempted farm land
within the corporate* bounds until it should have been laid out
into lots or blocks of five acres or less.35
Seven bills were disapproved because they authorized tax-
ation for private purposes. The governor was of the opinion
that while it had been held that a locality could subscribe to rail-
road stock, it was not permissible to make an outright gift. Nor
was it permissible to levy a tax to secure the location of railroad
shops or for the promotion of manufacturing or business con-
cerns. Governor Palmer believed that it was not possible to
construe the constitution so as to make it appear that these un-
dertakings were legitimate public purposes.36
A bill to provide for the construction of a levee on the Okaw
or Kaskaskia river was vetoed because it authorized a uniform
tax for this purpose. The general assembly, Governor Palmer
held, could authorize such a tax only in proportion to the benefit
derived by the property taxed.37
Two bills were disapproved because they undertook to dis-
pose of private property by legislative act. The first was a bill
in 1857 for the incorporation of the St. Louis and Cincinnati
Railroad Company. The bill proposed to create a new corpora-
tion vesting all the corporate powers of the Ohio and Mississippi
Railroad Company in one individual, who was alleged to have
purchased the property and franchises of that company. In
addition the bill proposed to confer upon him "all the rights,
powers and franchises usually possessed by such corporations."
3*S. J., 1869, II, pp. 871-876; H. ]., Ill, p. 659. In Ramsay v. Hoeger,
76 ///. 432-445, it was held that under the constitution of 1848 the exemp-
tion made was constitutional. But the constitution of 1870, Article IX,
section 6, expressly provides what Governor Palmer contended for in 1869.
S5S. J., 1869, II, pp. 736, 904; HI, pp. 599, 658.
30S. J., 1869, I, PP- 499, 949; II, PP- 75, 739, 889-890, 926-927, 949, 952;
H. J., II, p. 589; III, pp. 540, 541, 641, 751.
s7H. /., 1869, III, pp. 534, 642.
65] THE SUSPENSIVE VETO OF 1848 65
Governor Bissell called attention to the fact that the ownership
of the property in question was then pending in the courts of
both Illinois and Missouri. He regarded the question a judicial
one and beyond the power of the legislative branch. Governor
Bissell also objected to the vague and general grant of powers
just quoted. The constitution did not permit special legislation
except in rare cases. In the case of special incorporations the
powers granted should be carefully specified.38 The second bill
was passed in 1869. It proposed to establish a certain road and
to require the owners of the land to remove their fences within
ninety days or be liable to punishment for obstructing a public
highway. Governor Palmer disapproved this bill because private
property could not be taken by legislative act, and punishment
for trespass or obstruction could not be authorized until the land
had become public property through regular condemnation pro-
ceedings.39
As if the practice of authorizing incorporated communities
to subscribe to railroad stock had not already gone far enough,
the general assembly of 1869 proposed to go still further. Six
extraordinary bills were passed during that session, each of which
in whole or in part authorized parts of communities to subscribe
to stock. Two were bills to authorize certain cities, counties,
towns, villages, or townships, or parts thereof, to subscribe to
railroad stock. Four were bills to authorize trustees of schools
in counties not having township organization to make subscrip-
tion. They were to act upon petition of not less that fifty voters
in the district stating the amount and other details of the sub-
scription. An election was to be held. And if the majority
should favor the proposal the trustees "in their corporate ca-
pacity" were to make the subscription for the township. In all
these cases Governor Palmer held that there was no power in
the general assembly to authorize unorganized communities to
act in the manner proposed. Whether these localities were
merely designated parts of organized communities or congres-
sional school townships there was no corporation competent to
act. They were merely groups of private individuals, none of
whom could be authorized to take any action binding the rest.40
A bill which proposed to alter the boundaries of Perry
county was passed in 1869. Governor Palmer disapproved it,
SSH. ]., 1859, P- 58.
89//. /., 1869, III, p. 535-
*°S. J., 1869, II, pp. 882-884, 849, 845, 971, 976; H. J., Ill, pp. 537, 637,
640, 647, 648, 692, 696, 756.
66 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [66
giving as his reasons that it conflicted with sections 2 and 4 of
Article IV of the constitution, which provided that no county
should be divided or added to without the consent of the major-
ity of the legal voters of the county, nor should any portion of a
county be separated from it without the consent of a majority
of the voters of such portion.41
The act of 1865 "concerning Horse Railways in the city of
Chicago" has already been referred to. Governor Oglesby was
of the opinion that this act extending the charter and rights of
the company to ninety-nine years was a violation of the contract
existing between the city of Chicago and the corporation under
which the franchise was to last for twenty-five years, leaving the
city free to buy the property at an appraised value at the end
of that time. In the case of Blair v. Chicago,42 the supreme
court of the United States held that the terms of the act pur-
porting to extend the franchise were not clear and that there-
fore the franchise had not been so extended. Therefore, of
course, the agreement between the corporation and the city of
Chicago had not been violated. There seems to be little doubt,
however, that the intention was to extend the franchise.
In 1869 a bill was passed fixing passenger rates on railroads
in Illinois. The maximum rate per mile was to be three cents
for persons over ten years of age and one and a half cents for
children under ten. Governor Palmer objected to this bill, first,
because it was a violation of the obligation of contract, and sec-
ondly, because the fixing of a rate was a judicial question. A
corporate charter, he held, was a contract, and it could not be
violated by the legislature. Impairment might be done by modi-
fication or change of the charter as well as by total subversion.
He suggested that both parties to the contract, the state and the
corporation, had rights under it. The general assembly might
by law require the roads to fix a reasonable rate and to make
no discriminations. But the question as to what constituted a
fair and reasonable rate was, in his opinion, a judicial question
and should be left to the courts.43
Three bills were passed during this period involving the sur-
render of governmental powers, one in each of the sessions
1857, 1867, and 1869. The first was a bill to incorporate the
"Iroquois Horse Company No. Two." It proposed to incorpor-
. /., 1869, III, pp. 529, 639.
*22oi U. S. 400 (1906).
*»S. /., 1869, I, p. 471.
67] THE SUSPENSIVE VETO OF 1848 67
ate certain citizens of Iroquois, for the protection of their prop-
erty against thieves and robbers. They were to possess the com-
mon rights and powers of corporations, such as perpetual exist-
ence, the right to sue and be sued, the right to adopt by-laws,
levy assessments on their members, etc. The company or any
of its members were authorized to arrest without warrant and
bring before the proper officer any person suspected to be guilty
of robbery or theft — especially horse stealing. In case of the
arrest of an innocent person, they were not to be held liable
unless it could be shown that they had acted with malice. Ap-
parently they were not limited to acting within Iroquois county.
Governor Bissell was unsparing in his criticism of this bill. It
was characterized as dangerous and outrageous. "Such an out-
rage upon what we are accustomed to regard as sacred rights,"
he said, "has probably no precedent in any free country."44
The second bill of this class was ' ' an act to amend the char-
ter of the Chicago Law Institute." It provided that all existing
members of the Chicago Law Institute and all future members
were to become notaries public and have certificates issued to
them by the secretary of state upon the receipt of a statement
from the secretary of the institute. Governor Oglesby disap-
proved this bill stating that; there was only two constitutional
methods of filling an office — either by election or appointment.
He also objected to the provision authorizing the secretary of
state to issue commissions. Under the constitution all officers
were to receive their commissions from the governor.45
The third and last bill of this class was like the one passed
in 1857. It proposed to incorporate the "Mercantile Protective
Insurance Company of Chicago" — an association of private per-
sons to protect themselves against thieves, robbers, and bur-
glars. The bill authorized the company to organize a uniform
force of watchmen with power to make arrest and whom all
state and local officers were bound to respect. Governor Palmer
in his veto message recommended that people should take more
care in the election of police officers. Then it would not be neces-
sary to invest private persons with police power.46
Nevada had just become admitted to the Union. Up to the
time of her admission she had been protected by Congress. As
if to remind her that her position in the sisterhood of states
*4//. /., 1859, p. 60.
*~S. J., 1867, pp. 1230-1231.
*eH. J., 1869, III, pp. 540, 6J5-6-J6.
68 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [68
involved not only privileges but obligations as well, the general
assembly of Illinois in 1869 passed two bills incorporating mining
companies to do business in Nevada. They were to be confined
exclusively to that state and were granted extensive powers and
privileges there. Governor Palmer in returning the. bills said
that Illinois could not thus legislate for Nevada. The proper
place for the persons interested in mining in Nevada to go to get
their charter would be to that state. If states could be permit-
ted to legislate for one another in this manner serious conse-
quences would follow.47
One of the safeguards in the constitution of 1848 against the
evils of private legislation was found in section 23 of Article
III, which provided in part that no private or local law passed
by the general assembly should contain more than one subject
and that that should be clearly expressed in the title. Three
bills were found conflicting with the provision. The first was the
bill of 1863 already discussed, which under cover of the title ' ' an
act to incorporate the Wabash Railway Company" attempted
to surrender the principal streets and bridges in Chicago to a
public service corporation. The two others were passed in 1869.
One was an act abolishing the court of common pleas in the city
of Cairo. In addition it proposed to raise the salaries of the
marshal and ex-marshal of Cairo. By the insertion of this pro-
vision Governor Palmer held that the bill had been made to con-
flict with two sections of article III of the constitution, section
23 by including more than one subject, and section 33 which pro-
vided that ' ' the general assembly shall never grant or authorize
extra compensation for any public officer, agent, servant, or con-
tractor, after the services shall have been rendered or the con-
tract entered into. ' '48 The other was a bill to incorporate a real
estate concern. It carried the seductive title "the Southern
Illinois Emigrant Aid Society." Governor Palmer upon reading
the title of the bill had been led to expect to find a charter for
a charitable institution. What he found was a company author-
ized to loan money and buy and sell land. The misleading name
of the corporation was evidently adopted to enable the incor-
porators to prey on the ignorance and confidence of the settlers.49
Vetoes on Grounds of Policy. — The fifty-three bills returned
on grounds of policy or expediency will be discussed under the
following general classification: returned upon request, private
*7S. J., 1869, II, pp. 739, 885-886.
**S. /., 1869, 1, pp. 428-429.
*9S. /., 1869, II, pp. 890-891.
69] THE SUSPENSIVE VETO OP 1848 69
corporations, public corporations, fees of public officers, and mis-
cellaneous. Seven bills were returned in compliance with the re-
quests of one or the other of the houses of the general assembly.
The two bills of 1849 incorporating the Illinois Coal Company
and the Belleville and Illinoistown Railroad Company respec-
tively have already been noted. The former originated in the
house of representatives and the latter in the senate. Owing to
a misunderstanding between the two houses the house of repre-
sentatives requested the governor to disapprove the senate bill.
The senate in turn requested the disapproval of the house bill.
The outcome, as we have seen, was a joint resolution requesting
the governor to approve both bills.
In 1861 the house of representatives requested the return
to the senate of a senate bill to regulate practice in the fifth ju-
dicial circuit, alleging in their request that they had passed it
without thoroughly understanding some of its features.50 The
remaining four bills of this class were house bills pased in 1869.
Their return was asked in one resolution. As a result of their
return two were amended and one was dropped, and in the case
of the fourth a substitute was adopted.51
It seems desirable to mention in this connection a bill re-
turned in 1869 in compliance with a request of private citizens.
This was a bill for "an act to legalize the transfer of certain
franchises and rights of action to the Rockford, Rock Island and
St. Louis Railroad Company." A petiton signed by 1200 citi-
zens of Cass county requesting its rejection was presented to
Governor Palmer. The latter in returning it to the house stated
that he was in possession of no information that would justify
him in acting one way or the other, but that the size of the peti-
tion was such as to warrant him in returning it for reconsidera-
tion. It is perhaps significant that the bill was dropped.52
One of the most serious evils of the period from 1848 to 1870«
was the practice of special legislation and especially that of cre-
ating special private corporations. Twenty-three of the bills re-
turned on the grounds of policy during this period dealt with
special private corporations. Nine were attempts to create cor-
porations for the purpose of dealing in land. Three were passed
in 1865 and six in 1869. Governor Oglesby in vetoing the three
bills of 1865 laid the foundation for a policy denying corporate
organizations to mere real estate firms. He urged that to justify
™S. /., 1861, p. 587.
51//. /., 1869, III, pp. 609, 618, 624, 650, 653, 679, 764; S. J., II, p. 944.
52//. /., 1869, HI, p. 604.
70 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [70
the grant of corporate powers and privileges there should be
some commensurate benefit to the public. In the bills before
him he could see no such benefits. Indeed, two of these com-
panies, the Illinois Land Company to be located in East St.
Louis, and the Brooklyn Land Company to be located in South
Chicago, were clearly organized to own and hold large tracts of
real estate contrary to the best interests of these communities
and without the risks attendant upon individual ownership.33
Governor Palmer in 1869 followed this policy adopted by Gov-
ernor Oglesby. He disapproved six bills authorizing the forma-
tion of mere land companies. He followed the line of objections
raised by the latter, as will be seen from an examination of his
veto of the bill to incorporate the Illinois Land Company. This
was doubtless another attempt made by the same concern which
had been refused a charter of incorporation in 1865. The gov-
ernor had learned that it was a concern owning 1200 acres of
valuable land in East St. Louis. It was, he held, an attempt to
escape the embarrassments usually incident to general owner-
ship of land such as division of the property on account of death
or individual failure. The bill he considered contrary to the
public interest. Here was an attempt to create speculative values
and hence make it more difficult for the people to own homes.
It was an attempt to take a certain block of land off the market
and at some future time reap an unearned reward.54
Eight private incorporation bills were disapproved because
they granted too great powers in general. Two of these granted
privileges and powers not enjoyed by other corporations en-
gaged in the same line of business.55 Two others made it possi-
ble to evade the usury laws and charge a high rate of interest.56
In the other cases of this group of bills the powers granted were
generally objected to as being ''too great," "enormous" and the
like. One case may be cited, the bill to incorporate the Massac
Manufacturing Company. It was to enjoy perpetual existence,
and was authorized to issue stock up to $1,000,000. As far as
Governor Palmer was able to see it might go into any sort of
business where it might "drive out competition whether corpor-
»SS. /., 1867, pp. 12, 13, 14.
54H. /., 1869, III, pp. 53i, 534, 535, 635, 642, 762; S. J., II, pp. 844,
883-884, 887-889.
"S. /., 1854, P- 188; 1869, II. p. 738.
•>f-H. J., 1855, p. 699; 1869, III, pp. 532, 645.
71] THE SUSPENSIVE VETO OF 1848 71
ations or individuals." He stated that he felt himself called
upon to make an earnest protest against such a bill.57
Two interesting bills were disapproved in 1865. They are
interesting chiefly because they show to what absurd extremes
a legislature may go. The most important of them was a bill to
incorporate the "Quincy Board of Water Works." It granted
a perpetual franchise with a monopoly in furnishing water for
the city. The corporation was given unrestricted power to fix
rates, and there was no provision for legislative control.58 The
less important of the two was a bill to incorporate the ' ' McLean
County Dairy and Cheese Company." It granted the incorpor-
ators exclusive right to manufacture cheese in McLean county
for ten years. "I am unable to see," said Governor Oglesby,
facetiously in his message of disapproval, "why Mr. Lowery,
Mr. Matson, and Mr. Hall have any more right to manufacture
all the cheese in McLean county for ten years than they have to
eat all the cheese in McLean county for the same number of
years."59
Four years later two bills were passed for the purpose of
establishing the Massac County Agricultural and Fair Associa-
tion and the Logan County Agricultural Society and Driving
Park Association. Under cover of an apparent public purpose
as the titles would indicate, it was attempted to exempt their
property from taxation. In addition they were empowered to
appoint their own police officers, who might make arrests without
warrant. Governor Palmer found that they were mere private
undertakings for profit and he could therefore not approve
them.60
A bill to incorporate the Union Life Insurance Company
passed in 1869 was disapproved because it attempted to make the
state the custodian of certain funds of this company. It pro-
vided that certain funds should be deposited with the secretary
of the treasury who was to give his receipt therefor. It pro-
vided further that "such receipt shall be a pledge in good faith
upon the state of Illinois for the safe keeping of such deposit."
Governor Palmer did not think it proper to make the state carry
this risk inasmuch as it had no interest in the undertaking.81
During the same session Governor Palmer also disapproved a
"S. /., 1869, I, p. 423; II, PP- 883-884; H. /., Ill, pp. 535, 536, 645, 646.
B8H. /., 1867, p. 12.
nS. /., 1867, p. it.
6°tf. /., 1869, III, pp. 543, 636, 643.
eiH. /., 1869, HI, pp. 542, 645-
72 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [72
bill to incorporate the Western Commercial Agency. This was
an attempt to establish a corporation to collect information useful
to business men. Presumably one of its functions would have
been to investigate the financial conditions of men and business
firms in whom their clients might have an interest. Governor
Palmer held that such a firm might do a good deal of harm to
the credit of any one whom they might investigate and their
liability for damages should be provided for if the bill were to
become a law. But he believed that this sort of business might
very well be left to private persons.82
Four bills affecting cities and towns were disapproved.
Three were bills for amending the charters of Joliet, the town of
Golconda, and the village of Lockport respectively. Attention
has already been called to the act amending the charter of the
city of Joliet. It provided that only persons who had been resi-
dent taxpayers and freeholders for two years preceding the elec-
tion should be qualified to hold the office of mayor or alderman.
It moreover provided that only tax payers and freeholders of
one year's standing should be qualified to vote on any measure
tending to create indebtedness. Governor Palmer believed that
it might be wise to create certain residence and property quali-
fications for the office of mayor. But the franchise, he held,
should certainly not be thus narrowed. Freeholders were not
superior, neither in wisdom nor patriotism, to the rest of the
population.63 The amendment proposed to the charter of the
town of Golconda would have made it a misdemeanor to fail to
work on the streets, without regard to whether or not persons
were physically able to do so or prevented by poverty from paying
for it.64 There were several objections to the bill passed to amend
the charter of Lockport. It gave the trustees power to suppress
hackmen, draymen, carters, porters, omnibus drivers, cabmen,
carmen, and all others who should pursue like occupations. It
granted very large powers to the police magistrates and justices
of the peace, raising their jurisdiction to amounts involving as
high as $500, authorizing them to send their processes to any part
of the county, and, finally, denying the right of appeal in cases
arising under the town ordinances and not involving more than
$500. In the substitute that was passed all the objections of
«*//. /., 1869, III, p. 533.
<>SS. /., 1869, II, pp. 380-381.
•«S. /., 1869, II, pp. 887, 889.
73] THE SUSPENSIVE VETO OP 1848 73
Governor Palmer were obviated.63 The fourth bill of this class
was for an act to incorporate the city of Carole. It attached
the surrounding farm district to the city for school purposes.
But though it provided that the .farmers should be taxed for
school purposes it did not give them any voice in the control of
the schools.66
During the period under consideration three apportionment
bills were disapproved. Two of these, one in 1857 and 1859 re-
spectively, were to reapportion representation in the general
assembly. The third was a bill in 1863 to reapportion represen-
tation in Congress. The first of these had been inadvertently
signed by Governor Bissell and the report of this fact was trans-
mitted to the house by his clerk, though the bill had not left his
possession. As soon as he discovered his error and within thirty
minutes after his clerk had reported his approval to the house
of representatives the governor corrected his error and reported
it to the house. The house refused to accept the correction.
During the same year the case came before the supreme court
where Judge Caton, delivering the opinion of the court, held
that the governor could change his mind and correct his errors
as long as the bill was in his possession.67 The following general
assembly also passed an apportionment bill. It was likewise
disapproved by Governor Bissell. The reasons given were that
the effect of the bill would be to continue political control in the
hands of a minority of the people. The bill was also defective in
that it placed one county in two senatorial districts, and was un-
constitutional in that it violated section 10 of article III in the
matter of excess representation.68
The congressional reapportionment bill of 1863 was also a
"gerrymander." Governor Yates in disapproving it said that
it was not better than the existing law as regarded the conveni-
ences of the electors of the state, and that the districts were not
so properly formed with regard to territory and population. ' ' In
these above respects it shows more regard for party advantage
than it does for the rights, privileges, and conveniences of the
65H. /., 1869, II, pp. 278, 345, 445; S. /., I, p. 838; Private La^s, IV,
PP. 323-324-
66//. /., 1869, HI, pp. 534, 605, 692.
67H. /., 1857, pp. 1004, 1018, 1022, 1023; People ex rel. v. Hatch,
19 ///., 282.
68#. /., 1859, PP. 884 ff.
74 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [74
people of the state at large." It was passed over the veto in the
senate, but failed to carry in the house of representatives.69
The practice of regulating the fees of county officers by
special act was another source of confusion. Governor Palmer
disapproved six such bills in 1869. He called attention to the
fact that the general assembly in 1867 had passed eleven such
bills causing a great deal of confusion and overlapping. The
bills presented to him were local and partial while the subject
was general and could well be covered by a general law.70
In addition to the above vetoes which it has been found pos-
sible to classify more or less, fourteen others were made on va-
rious grounds of policy and expediency. It is not thought de-
sirable to discuss them all here. The three most important will
be mentioned, however. Two of these have already been noted
in connection with the discussion of bills pased over the veto,
namely, the Banking Act of 1851 and the Lake Front Act of 1869.
The main objection of Governor French to the Bank Act were,
that it did not provide definitely for a reserve for the redemption
of the notes to be issued, that it did not provide a safe and ade-
quate personal liability on the part of the stockholders for re-
demption of notes, and that under the law the banks might be-
come distributing agencies for foreign bank paper.71 The Lake
Front Bill, among other things, granted 1050 acres of land to the
Illinois Central Railroad for the sum of $800,000, payable in
four installments within a year. Section six of the bill provided
that if at the end of four months the city of Chicago should not
have released all its claims and interest in the land the company
should be relieved from further payment. Governor Palmer ob-
jected that the $600,000 remaining in the hands of the company
in such event should not be cancelled. He had found by con-
sulting the board of public works in Chicago that the lands pro-
posed to be vested in the Illinois Central Railroad Company for
$800,000, and possibly for $200,000, were worth $2,600,000
market value. The company should be required to pay full value
for the land in question. He also objected to the grant of sub-
merged lands capable of affording 70,000 lineal feet of dock
front. A relatively small expenditure would raise its value to
$1,000 per front foot. The bill did not require the Illinois Cen-
tral to improve the land. What was worse, it deprived the state
™H. ]., 1863, pp. 654, 672-673.
70//. /., 1869, III, pp. 530, 633, 643, 645, 661, 747-748; 5". /., II, pp.
932-933, 961, 966.
T1//. /., 1851, pp. 474-479: S. /., p. 421.
75] THE SUSPENSIVE VETO OP 1848 75
of the power to require it later. It failed to reserve to the state the
right to limit profits made on this property for the relief of com-
merce. The bill should be amended in the respects indicated.
It should also be amended so as to enable the state to receive seven
per cent of the gross receipts from the property granted ancl
from all improvements made thereon. The property should,
finally, be made subject to taxation in all respects. As has been
stated, the bill was repassed in spite of the governor's objec-
tions.72
Repeated attention has been called to the practice prevalent
during this period of encouraging public subscription to stock of
coroprations — especially railroads. The result was a serious in-
crease in the debts of local communities leading as a further
result to pressure upon the general assembly for relief. The
last case of the use of the veto power to influence the policy of
the state to be noted in this chapter arose in connection with this
situation. A bill was passed in 1869 amending an act of 1865
relating to county and city debts. Governor Palmer disapproved
it. He stated in his message that it was one of a class of bills
the object of which was to cause the state to assume the local
debts. But if the people of the state wished to assume this bur-
den, it would have to be done by the representatives of the people
without the governor's consent.73
Vetoes of Defective Bills. — Under the council of revision a
relatively large number of bills were disapproved on account of
defectiveness. The exact number was thirty-three out of a total
of one hundred and four or nearly one-third. During the pe-
riod under consideration the number was much smaller both
relatively and absolutely. Out of a total of one hundred bills
returned by the governor only eight were returned as defective,
and six of these were returned during the legislative session of
1869.
It does not seem, however, that the smaller number of bills
thus returned warrants the conclusion that legislators
were more careful or capable during the period from 1848 to
1870 than they were during the earlier period. Indeed there are
many indications that they were much less careful. The fact
seems to be that the council of revision — a judicial body — sub-
jected bills to a much more searching test than the governor was
able to do.
«//. /., 1869, III, pp. 517 ff-, 638; S. J., II, p. 922.
"S1. /., 1869, II, pp. 844, 883-884, 898-899.
76 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [76
The first bill to be returned on account of defectiveness
was passed by the general assembly of 1859. It was an act to
provide for binding the laws. It conflicted in some of its provi-
sions with laws ordering their distribution.74 A bill to estab-
lish graded schools in Nashville was returned in 1869. A strange
error had crept into the bill. While Nashville is in Washington
county, the bill required the board of education to furnish an
abstract of all children under twenty-one years of age to the
school commissioner of Knox county.76
The rest of the bills of this class were all superfluous. In
1865 a bill for an act to enable Pike county to aid drafted men
to procure substitutes was returned. The governor gave as his
reason that "the member from Pike" had informed him that
more satisfactory legislation had been passed by the general as-
sembly since, the bill in question had been passed.76 In 1869 one
bill had been passed obviating certain defects in the one re-
turned.77 Another bill to change the time of electing school trus-
tees was returned as superfluous because a general act had been
passed on the subject. Three bills were returned because iden-
tical bills had already been passed and approved.78
CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE VETO POWER PROM 1848-1870
Attention may again be called to the fact that the first gov-
ernor under the constitution of 1848 felt that he had been de-
prived of the veto power. We have seen that that was not true
—that indeed he had just been given the veto power. We have
also seen that it was effective generally up to 1869 and that even
during that session of the general assembly only seventeen bills
were passed over the veto.
Nevertheless, as the situation developed, a mere suspensive
veto proved adequate. Not only was it necessary to strengthen
the veto power, but other safeguards were needed to check the
legislative department of the government. One look at the
legislative riot in Illinois between the end of the civil war and
1870 will prove sufficient. Judge Dillon had said of the gen-
eral assembly in 1857 that "It is probably true that more cor-
porations were created by the legislature of Illinois at its last
session than existed in the whole civilized world at the com-
745. /., 1861, pp. ii, 18, 117.
"H. J., 1869, III, pp. 534, 642.
™H. J., 1865, pp. 9/3, 975-
77H. /., 1869, III, p. 221.
™.S. J., 1869, III, pp. 740, 891.
77] THE SUSPENSIVE VETO OF 1848 77
mencement of the present century."79 But the movement had
merely begun.
The growth of private legislation was one of the most serious
evils of the period. In 1857 the general assembly enacted 563
special laws. Not until 1865 was this number equalled or sur-
passed. In that year it reached 724. From there on it mounted
higher and higher, to 1071 in 1867 and 1188 in 1869. Those
were years of multifarious and indiscriminate incorporation.
Success in 1865 and further success in 1867 had "merely whet-
ted the appetites" of special privilege hunters. In 1869 — after
the people in November, 1868, had voted in favor of a consti-
tutional revision — they "moved on the capitol."80 Bills to in-
corporate seem to have been passed automatically. No scheme,
however fantastic, seems to have been proposed in vain.81
Governor Palmer had strongly deprecated the practice of
special legislation in his inaugural address of 1869.82 "We have
seen that he disapproved a number of such bills. But he was
simply helpless against the avalanche of bills that came down
upon him. It is also a question whether — if he had returned
say three or four hundred — they would not all have been pased
over his veto.
The attitude of the general assembly towards its functions
was wholly unworthy of that body. Article III section 23 of the
constitution provided that "Every bill shall be read on three
different days in each house, unless, in case of urgency, three-
fourths of the house where such bill is depending shall deem
it expedient to dispense with this rule.." This section was
treated like a dead letter. Let us take, for example, a few facts
from the end of the session of 1869. On March 10th, the day
before adjournment, the house of representatives read twice and
referred to committees fifty-three bills from eight o'clock to
nine-forty in the evening.83
Bills were rushed through at the end of the session. Thus,
on March 10, 1869, the house of representatives, in addition
to the bills on first and second reading referred to above, passed
one hundred and two bills on third reading. Moreover, fourteen
79Dillon, Municipal Corporations, paragraph 373.
80Davidson and Stuve, History of Illinois, pp. 912-913, 933, 937.
81/f. /., 1867, P. 12; 1869, III, p. 338, 540, 645-646; S. J., 1867, pp. ii,
1230-1231 ; 1869, I, p. 471.
^Personal Recollections, pp. 285-287.
83//. /., 1869, III, pp. 325-340.
78 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [78
of these were passed unanimously and sixty-seven with only one
dissenting vote. In other words, out of the hundred and two
bills, eighty-one passed by practically unanimous votes.84 If
we turn to the senate, the situation is still worse. During the
forenoon session of March 10, 1869, four hundred and ninety-
five bills were passed on third reading and only one was rejected.
Out of the whole number passed two hundred and eighty-seven
were passed unanimously. In the afternoon session, lasting
from two-thirty to seven, ninety-five bills were passed and one
rejected. Of the total number passed seventy-nine were passed
unanimously.. But it must not be understood that the dissent-
ing votes — at least in the senate — meant anything. Maybe Mr.
Tincher would get tired of voting affirmatively and the vote
would run 19 to 1 for a series of bills ; or Messrs. Adams, Boyd,
and Epler would tire and the vote would run 18 to 3 ; or again,
perhaps Messrs. Chittenden, Foot and Ward would vote nega-
tively for a while and the vote would stand 21 to 3 ; or Mr.
Ward alone would oppose and it would run 21 to 1 for a while.85
The number of bills sent to the governor for consideration
at the end of that session was simply appalling. The general
assembly took a recess from March 11 to April 14. On that day
Governor Palmer reported that he had approved one thousand
and fifty-four bills in the interval.86 The fact is that the com-
mittee on enrollment had remained at the state house and laid
before him from time to time between March 11 and April 1
one thousand and seventy-seven bills.87
In the discussion of the general development of the veto
power in Chapter I it was suggested that the growth of that
power was an indication of a marked growth of the confidence
of the people in the governor. Without making the statement
general, it is safe to say, for Illinois at least, that it was an
inevitable result of a growing distrust in the legislature. The
tyranny of the many had proved intolerable. On the other hand
the governor had done something to counteract that evil. The
people were now ready to strengthen his hand very considerably.
8*H. /., 1869, III, pp. 241 ff.
83 S. J., 1869, II, pp. 444-660.
865. /., 1869, II, pp. 741-789.
"S. J., 1869, II, pp. 795-844.
79]
. C-
-
THE SUSPENSIVE VETO OP 1848
79
III. TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF BILLS VETOED, THE
ACTION TAKEN UPON VETOES, THE REASONS FOR DISAPPROVAL, AND THE
NUMBER OF LAWS ENACTED, 1848-1870.
Vetoes
Action on
Vetoes
Grounds of
Veto
-o
QJ
"3
CO
in
"3
Governor
Year
-M
a
I*
>*
u
.O
s
u
o
u
V
d,
c
'•C
>>
<u
V
in
'* 1
3
</]
3
03
<u
(A
8
g
O
•2
*o
CJ
qj
3
£ cB
*
O
8
V
CO
</)
Q
o
u
Q
Aug. C. (
1848-50
280
O
2
i
I
0
o
o
. o
2
0
French ..../
1850-52
470
i o
,1
i
o
I
o
o
0
I
o
J-c. c
Matteson ....[
1852-54
1854-56
664
509
o
i O
3
2
i
o
2
2
o
o
0
o
3
2
o
o
3
2
o
0
Wm. K. f
1856-58
784
o
3
3
O
o
o
3
3
0
o
Bissell |
1858-60
393
o
4
i
3
o
0
4
i
I
I
Richard (
1860-62
538
o
2
i
i
0
I
i
o
2
0
Yates |
1862-64
186
I
2
I
i
o
o
2
2
O
o
Richard J. C
1864-66
840
o
7
3
4
I
o
6
I
5
I
Oglesby |
1866-68
1273
7
2
i
I
o
o
2
2
0
0
J. M. Palmer
1868-70
1573
_29
JL2
J?
34
17
I
52
29
-I7
6
-
Totals
75io
37
IOO
51
49
19
2
75
38
53
8
CHAPTER IV
THE VETO POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF 1870
Up to 1870 the governor of Illinois had had merely a suspen-
sive veto. The same majority which was required to pass a bill
on final reading could pass a bill over his disapproval. The
constitutional convention of 1862 had proposed a strengthening
of the veto power. The veto provision of the proposed constitu-
tion, found in section 14 of Article V, required a two-thirds vote
of the whole membership of each house of the general assembly
to override the governor's disapproval. It would have allowed
the governor ten days for the consideration of bills after ad-
journment as well as during the session.1
However, this constitution was not ratified by the people.
Though the state had been Republican at the election in 1860,
nevertheless a majority of the members of the constitutional con-
vention were Democrats.2 The Republican press found it com-
paratively easy to discredit their work.3 The conviction itself
played into the hands of its enemies by pretensions to sover-
eign powers.4
THE VETO PROVISIONS OF OTHER STATES IN 1870
In 1870 there were thirty-seven states in the Union. Only five
of these (Delaware, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and
West Virginia) did not have the veto power. A brief analysis
will be made here of the situation with regard to the veto power
in the other thirty-two states, chiefly on the basis of the vote re-
quired to override the veto and the time granted the governor
for the consideration of bills.
The vote required to override the veto varied from a mere
majority of those present to two-thirds of the total membership
^Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 1862, pp. 861-862, 1072 ff.
^Illinois State Journal, 1862, Jan. 22, March 26; Dickerson, The
Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1862, p. 8; Davidson and Stuve,
op. cit., p. 872.
3Dickerson, op. cit., pp. 48 ff.
^Illinois State Journal, 1862, Jan. 15, Feb. 5 and 19; Debates of the
Constitutional Convention, 1869, I, pp. 10-11; Dickerson, op. cit., pp.
32 ff.
80
81] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 81
of each house of the legislature. Connecticut alone permitted a
bare majority of the members present in either house to over-
ride the veto. Nine states (Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Ken-
tucky, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee, Vermont, and Illinois
up to 1870) required a majority of the total membership of each
house. One state, Maryland, required a three-fifths vote of the
total membership.
Almost two-thirds of the states having the veto power now
required a two-thirds vote to pass a bill over the governor's dis-
approval. Nine of these ( California, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska,
New York, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin) based the
majority required on the number present. Twelve states (Geor-
gia, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minne-
sota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and
South Carolina) required two-thirds of the total membership.
The time allowed the governor for the consideration of bills
during the session of the legislature varied from three to ten
days. Eight states (Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minne-
sota, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Wisconsin) granted only
three days. The tendency to place the time at five days had
already become clear. Fifteen states (Alabama, Florida, Geor-
gia, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas5 Vermont,
and Virginia) allowed five days. Maryland, which was unique
in requiring a three-fifths vote of the total membership of the
legislature to repass a bill, was also alone in granting the gov-
ernor six days for the consideration of bills during the session.
Eight states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Mich-
igan, Missouri, New York, and Pennsylvania) granted ten days.
It will be recalled that the early constitutions made no spe-
cific provisions as to the time allowed the governors for the con-
sideration of bills after the adjournment of the legislature. This
defect was remedied by Michigan in the constitution of 1850.
By 1870 nine states had adopted this method — granting the
governor a definite time after adjournment to consider bills.
Two states, Arkansas and Minnesota, allowed only three days.
Three states, Indiana, Michigan and Oregon, granted five. Three,
Florida, Missouri and Nevada, granted ten. Iowa had the most
satisfactory provision, granting thirty days.
A tendency to give the governor longer time for the considera-
5The constitution of Texas provided, however, that any bill passed
one day previous to adjournment and not returned by the governor be-
fore adjournment should become a law as if signed by him.
82 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [82
tion of bills after adjournment of the legislature than during
the session had already begun to appear. It is true that Mich-
igan granted less time after adjournment than during the ses-
sion. Four states, Arkansas, Minnesota, Missouri and Oregon,
granted the same length of time. But four states, namely, Flor-
ida, Indiana6 Iowa, and Nevada, had lengthened the time. In
both Florida and Nevada, the time allowed during the session was
five days, and after adjournment, ten days. In Indiana and Iowa
it was three days during the session, and five and thirty respect-
ively after adjournment.
Ten states (Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina7)
required that the vetoes made after adjournment should be re-
turned to the following session of the legislature for reconsider-
ation, usually within the first three days of such session. "We
have seen from our study of the council of revision and the transi-
tion period from 1848-1870 that similar provisions in the Illi-
nois constitution proved quite useless.
Only two states had provided that the governor might veto
separate and distinct items in appropriation bills. They were
Georgia and Texas, both of which had adopted such a provision
in their reconstruction constitutions of 1868. As was pointed
out in Chapter I, this precedent had been set by the constitution
of the Confederate States.
THE VETO PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1870
The veto provision in the constitution of Illinois of 1848 was
weak in several respects. It required only a majority of the
members of each house of the general assembly to pass a bill over
6Indiana also provided that no bill should be presented to the gov-
ernor within the last two days of the legislative session.
7The constitution of South Carolina of 1868 carried a strange error.
It provided that "if a bill or joint resolution shall not be returned by the
Governor within three days after it shall have been presented to him,
Sundays excepted, it shall have the same force and effect as if he had
signed it, unless the General Assembly, by their adjournment, prevented
its return, in which case it shall not have such force and effect unless
returned within two days after their next meeting." See Thorpe, op. cit.,
VI, p. 3229; Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of South
Carolina, 1868, p. 854. The error was corrected in the constitution of
1895 by dropping the word "not", thus providing that bills in the hands
of the governor after adjournment were to become laws unless returned
within the first two days of the next meeting of the legislature.
83] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 83
the governor's disapproval. While it allowed the governor ten
days for the consideration of bills during the session, the fact
that it granted no definite time after adjournment was unsatis-
factory. Finally, it did not auth6rize him to veto items in appro-
priation bills. These defects were remedied in the constitution
of 1870 and by an amendment adopted in 1884.
The constitutional convention of 1869-1870 was overwhelm-
whelmingly in favor of strengthening the veto power. The flood
of special acts enacted by recent legislatures were fresh in the
minds of the members. So were also Governor Palmer's heroic
efforts of 1869 to stem the tide. But it was equally well realized
that he had been largely helpless against the will of the general
assembly.
Before the convention had appointed its committees, a resolu-
tion urging that the veto power be strengthened was offered.8
One of the first things asked for was a reprint of Governor Pal-
mer's veto messages of 1869, together with a report of the action
of the general assembly on the vetoes.9 Many speeches and reso-
lutions referred to the evils of special legislation and expressed
the belief that a strong veto power would have checked it.10 To
quote one member, Mr. Allen of Crawford county, supporting
the strong veto power proposed by the committee on the execu-
tive, he said that an effective veto would have saved the state
from ' ' the curse of much of the vicious legislation that has pre-
vailed for the last few years. ' '"
The committee of nine, to whom the task of drafting the arti-
cle on the executive department was entrusted, reported on Janu-
ary 26,1870. They unanimously reported a veto section providing
that a two-thirds vote in each house should be required to over-
ride the governor's disapproval, and that the governor should
have ten days for the consideration of bills both during the ses-
sion and after adjournment.12
On February 19 the article on the executive department was
taken up for consideration. Mr. Elliott Anthony of Chicago,
the chairman of the committee of nine, referring to section 20
of the proposed article, said : ' ' Had our present governor been
clothed with this veto power, what untold miseries he would
have saved us from." Replying to critics of the so-called one-
sDebates, p. 67.
9Ibid., p. 90.
wlbid., pp. go, 151-153, 213, 1375.
^Ibid., p. 1377.
12Ibid., pp. 289-290.
84 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [84
man power, he concluded that the argument did not turn upon
that point, but upon the facts proved by experience, that the
legislature was not infallible, that love of power might cause it
to encroach upon the other departments, that factional strife
might prevent deliberation, and that it might be led astray by
haste or by the impressions of the moment. He believed that
it was necessary to give the executive the veto power to enable
him to defend himself and to increase the chances of the com-
munity against the enactment of bad laws, either through haste,
inadvertence, or design. As for the argument that the veto power
might be invoked to prevent the passage of good laws, he held
that that was a negligible danger.13
Unsuccessful efforts were made to reduce the majority re-
quired to override the veto, on February 22 and April 20. Both
would have reduced it to a majority of the total membership as
under the constitution of 1848. 14 The attitude of the convention
is shown by the vote on two amendments offered on April 20.
The first was an attempt to have inserted the provision of the
constitution of 1848, that bills vetoed after adjournment should
be submitted to the next meeting of the general assembly for re-
consideration. This was rejected by a vote of 47 to 11. The
second was a proposal that the general assembly, if it should
fail to pass a bill over the veto, might by majority vote submit
it to the people for adoption or rejection. This amendment was
rejected by the vote of 53 to 12.15
The veto provision as adopted by the convention is found in
section 16 of Article V of the constitution. It provides that : —
Every bill passed by the General Assembly shall, before it becomes
a law, be presented to the Governor. If he approves, he shall sign it, and
thereupon it shall become a law; but if he do not approve, he shall return
it, with his objections, to the house in which it shall have originated,
which house shall enter the objections at large upon its journal, and
proceed to reconsider the bill. If, then, two-thirds of the members elected
agree to pass the same, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to
the other house, by which it shall likewise be considered ; and if approved
by two-thirds of the members elected to that house, it shall become a
law, notwithstanding the objections of the Governor. But in all such
cases the vote of each house shall be determined by yeas and nays, to be
entered on the journal.16 Any bill which shall not be returned by the
^Debates, pp. 745 ff.
^Ibid., pp. 791-792, 1375-1376.
15Ibid., pp. 1376-1377.
16Here was inserted in 1884 two paragraphs authorizing the governor
to veto items in appropriation bills.
85] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 85
Governor within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been
presented to him, shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed
it, unless the General Assembly shall, by their adjournment, prevent its
return, in which case it shall be filed, "with his objections, in the office
of the Secretary of State, within ten days after such adjournment, or
become a law.17
THE VETO OF APPROPRIATION ITEMS
The constitutional convention of 1870 did not complete the
task of perfecting the veto power. Two states, Georgia and
Texas, had in 1868 adopted provisions enabling their governors
to veto items in appropriation bills. Illinois did not adopt this
feature until 1884. In the meantime eleven other states, in addi-
tion to Georgia and Texas, had adopted similar provisions. West
Virginia adopted it in 1872 ; Pennsylvania in 1873 ; Arkansas
and New York in 1874; Alabama, Missouri, Nebraska, and New
Jersey in 1875 ; Colorado and Minnesota in 1876 ; and California
in 1879.
Agitation started in Illinois early in the eighties. A reso-
lution offered by Senator Kelly of Adams county during the
session of 1881 is of interest as pointing toward an early adop-
tion of the power to veto items in appropriation bills. The resolu-
tion proposed read : —
Whereas, appropriation bills have often been delayed to nearly the
end of the session before they are put upon their passage, and reductions
that have been carefully considered and adopted are frequently reinstated
by committees of conference of the two houses without much deliberation,
at the closing hours of the session ; therefore,
Resolved, that all appropriation bills be considered and disposed of
at least three days before the day fixed for adjournment.
Though the resolution failed it is of interest to note that it
received twenty votes as against twenty-three opposed.18
Governor Cullom in his regular message to the general as-
sembly of 1883 recommended that an amendment to the consti-
tution giving the governor the power to veto items in appro-
priation bills be submitted to the people. He called attention to
the fact that many state governors possessed this power; that
the mayors of Illinois had been given this power in 1875 ; and that
President Arthur had urged its adoption for the United
States.19 Early in the session, Senator Wm. R. Archer of Pike
11 'Debates, II, p. 1874; Hurd, op. cit., p. Ixii.
185. /., 1881, pp. 116, 129.
19S. J., 1883, p. 42.
86 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [86
county introduced a resolution for an amendment to the consti-
tution requiring appropriation bills to be itemized and giving the
governor the power to veto distinct items of sections.20 The res-
olution without change was adopted by both houses of the gen-
eral assembly by overwhelming majorities — in the senate by the
vote of 35 to 7, and in the house of representatives by 107 to 2.21
It was submitted to the people for ratification at the general elec-
tion of November 4, 1884, where it was approved by the vote of
428,831 to 60,244, out of a total vote of 673,096 cast at the elec-
tion.22 The popular vote may be of less significance than at first
appears, however. Parties were required by law to express their
preference for or against an amendment by printing the affirm-
ative or the negative of the question on the ballot. All votes
were then counted affirmatively or negatively according to such
party action unless the ballots were ''scratched."23
The amendment adopted was inserted in the body of section
16 of Article V of the constitution and reads as follows : —
Bills making appropriations of money out of the treasury shall
specify the objects and purposes for which the same are made, and appro-
priate to them respectively their several amounts in distinct items and
sections, and if the Governor shall not approve any one or more of the
items or sections contained in any bill, but shall approve the residue thereof,
it shall become a law as to the residue in like manner as if he had
signed it. The governor shall then return the bill, with his objections to
the items or sections of the same not approved by him, to the house in
which the bill shall have originated, which house shall enter the objections
at large upon its journal, and proceed to reconsider so much of said bill
as is not approved by the Governor. The same proceedings shall be had
in both houses in reconsidering the same as is hereinbefore provided in
case of an entire bill returned by the Governor with his objections; and
if any item or section of said bill not approved by the Governor shall be
passed by two-thirds of the members elected to each "of the two houses
of the General Assembly, it shall become part of said law, notwithstanding
the objections of the Governor.24
ZOS. /., 1883, p. Hi. Senator Archer had been a member of the con-
stitutional conventions of 1847 and 1869, in both of which he had urged
the adoption of a strong veto power. See Illinois State Register, July 23,
1847; Debates of the Constitutional Convention, 1869, I, p. 152.
215*. /., 1883, p. 340; H. /., p. 897-
22Thorpe, op. cit., II, p. 1025; Illinois Blue Book, 1913-1914, p. 124.
23Gardner, "The Working of the state-wide Referendum in Illinois,"
American Political Science Review, V, p. 401.
24Thorpe, op. cit., II, pp. 1025-1026; Kurd, op. cit., p. Ixii.
87] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 87
THE USE OF THE VETO POWER, 1870-1915
The Extent of Its Use. — The total number of vetoes made
during the period from 1870 to 1915 was 297, almost seven per
cent, as compared with the 4,302 laws enacted. Only two reg-
ular legislative sessions during this period were without a veto,
namely the sessions of 1881 and 1885.
During the first session of the general assembly after the
adoption of the new constitution, Governor Palmer disapproved
eleven bills. From this time onward to the administration of
Governor Altgeld there was a period when the veto power was
used very little. In three sessions only, 1873, 1877, and 1889,
did the number of vetoes run up to five.
Governor Altgeld disapproved twenty-three bills, twelve in
the legislative session of 1893 and eleven in the session of 1895.
This was followed by a period of six years when the number of
vetoes again fell below ten per session. In fact, during the ad-
ministration of Governor Tanner only seven bills were vetoed,
three and four during the legislative sessions of 1897 and 1899,
respectively.
From the second half of the administration of Governor
Yates dates the extensive use of the veto power as we know it
today. During the legislative session of 1903 thirty bills were dis-
approved. Since that time the number has only twice fallen
below thirty — namely, in 1905 and 1911, when it was twenty-
eight and twenty-three respectively. In the regular and special
sessions of the general assembly of 1909-1910, during the first
half of Governor Deneen's second term, forty-four vetoes were
made — the highest number of bills returned to any general as-
sembly in Illinois since Governor Palmer disapproved seventy-
two bills during the legislative session of 1869. The growth of
the use of the veto power may be seen at a glance from the fol-
lowing : —
Period. Laws Enacted. Bills Vetoed. Percentage.
1870-1916* 4,302 297 7.0
1870-1900 2,394 68 2.8
1900-1916* 1,908 229 12.0
1908-1910 239 44 18.0
*Includes only the regular session of 1915-
Of the 297 bills disapproved during the period under consid-
eration 173 were house bills while only 124 were senate bills. The
governor's disapproval fell almost regularly more heavily on
88 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [88
house bills. In only three cases, the sessions of 1893, 1895, and
1897, were more bills returned to the senate than to the house of
representatives.
Taking the whole period 1870 to 1915, 32 bills, or ten per
cent of the whole number disapproved, were returned dur-
ing the session of the general assembly; and 265, or ninety per
cent, were returned after adjournment. The proportion of vetoes
made after adjournment of the general assembly has increased
steadily up to the present time. From 1870 to 1892, a period of
twenty-two years, 38 vetoes were made. Of these, fifteen, or
forty per cent were made during the session, while twenty-three,
or sixty per cent, were made after adjournment. From 1892 to
1916, a period of twenty-four years, 259 bills were disapproved.
Of these only seventeen, or six and a half per cent, were disap-
proved during the session, while 242, or ninety-three and a half
per cent, were disapproved after adjournment. If we take the
period of 1900 the percentage of bills disapproved during the
legislative session falls still lower. Out of the 229 bills disap-
proved during that time only eleven, or four and a half per cent,
were returned during the legislative session.
In the preceding discussion appropriation bills disapproved
in part, under the amendment of 1884, have been included. It is
of interest to note that that power was not brought into use be-
fore 1899. One bill was disapproved in part that year. But
even after that there were three sessions in which no such vetoes
were made namely, the sessions of 1901, 1909, and 1911. After
1900 the number of bills in which items were disapproved usually
ran from four to six, but reached as high as ten during the ses-
sion of 1915.
The Effectiveness of the Veto Power, 1870-1915. — In connec-
tion with this phase of the discussion of the veto power under the
constitution of 1870 some striking facts appear. One may almost
say that the veto power has been absolute. Only two bills have
been passed over the governor's disapproval, the first in 1871
and the second in 1895. The first was an act authorizing the city
of Quincy to subscribe for $500,000 of capital stock in the Quincy,
Missouri and Pacific Railroad Company. The railroad company
was chartered in Missouri and existed wholly within that state.
Governor Palmer held the bill to be clearly unconstitutional. It
revived an old law by title. It regulated the fees of public of-
ficers by special act. It conflicted with the constitutional require-
ment regarding uniformity of taxes for municipal purposes.
89] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 89
Despite these and other objections the bill was passed over the
veto by 35 to 10 in the senate and 133 to 2 in the house of repre-
sentatives.25
The act of 1895 was in regard to the employment of con-
victs. It forbade the manufacture of cigars in the prisons of the
state. Governor Altgeld in his mesage of disapproval called at-
tention to the fact that the constitution prohibits the sale of
prison labor. It was therefore necessary to employ them in
some useful occupation directly. The policy of the adminis-
tration had been to employ them in various lines of work,
assigning not more than one hundred to any one trade so as
not to burden any one especially. He pointed out that if any-
thing the cigar industry was somewhat favored, in that only
fifty-eight prisoners were engaged in that industry at the time.
The argument of uncleanliness he answered by saying that
there was "not a neater and cleaner shop and workers in the
country." Nevertheless the bill was repassed by large majori-
ties, receiving 39 to 8 in the senate and 86 to 46 in the house of
representatives.26
Another interesting fact in connection with the use of the
veto power from 1870 to 1915 is the fact that only one bill was
amended to meet the objections of the governor. This was a
bill to amend section 3 of an act creating the Chicago Drainage
District. There were slight defects in the title. In one place
the preposition "to" was left out. In another phrase "obsta-
cles" had been used instead of "obstructions," the word used
in the original act. These defects and others of a similar nature
would have made it necessary to take the act into court to de-
termine its validity. Both houses of the general assembly
agreed unanimously to the necessary amendments.27
ANALYSIS OF THE VETO MESSAGES 1870-1915
The veto messages during this period have been classified
on the same principle employed in clasifying the vetoes of the
two preceding periods. It has been thought best to place the
vetoes of items in appropriation bills in a separate group, how-
ever. Logically, they come under the class of vetoes on grounds
of policy. But by separating them from the general class to
™S. /., 1871, I, pp. 377-383, 425; H. ]., p. 505. The act was upheld in
Quincy, M. & P. R. Co., v. Morris, 84 ///., 410 (1877).
265\ /., 1895, pp. 796, 933 ; H. /., p. 1093.
275. /., 1907-1908, pp. 412, 413, 435J H. /., p. 243.
90 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [90
which they belong a clearer appreciation of the operation of that
particular feature of the constitution will be gained.
Vetoes on Constitutional Grounds.
During the period under discussion eighty-nine bills were
disapproved on constitutional grounds. Two were disapproved
as conflicting with the constitution of the United States, eighty-
seven with the constitution of Ilinois.
Constitution of the United States. — The two bills regarded
as conflicting with the constitution of the United States were
passed in 1877 and 1905 respectively. The first was a bill to make
silver coin legal tender for the payment of debts in Illinois. Gov-
ernor Cullom is disapproving it held that it conflicted with par-
agraph 5 of section 8, Article I, of the constitution of the United
States which gives Congress the power to coin and regulate the
value of money. In addition he held it to be a violation of the
obligation of contract in that it was intended to apply to past
contracts where the form of money to be paid had not been ex-
pressly stipulated.28 The second was a bill passed in 1905 to
prevent the practice of "scalping" tickets for theaters and other
places of amusement. Governor Deneen considered this to be
repugnant to the fourteenth amendment of the national consti-
tution. He referred to the case of the Gulf, Colorado and Santa
Fe Railroad Company v. Ellis,29 where the court had held a
similar law in relation to railroad tickets invalid. In addition
the bill carried a strange defect. It declared that "every per-
son" who should commit any of the acts sought to be made
unlawful "is hereby declared to be a misdemeanor."30
Constitution of Illinois. — Eighty-seven bills were disap-
proved on account of conflict with the constitution of Illinois.
Fifteen of these fall within the first eight years of the new con-
stitution. They ran from four to six for each general assembly,
with the exception of that of 1877, where there was only one veto
and that on constitutional grounds. It may also be noted that
most of the vetoes during this early period were on constitu-
2*Executive Documents, May 30, 1877; House Bill No. 47. The
executive documents are filed chronologically in the archives of the secre-
tary of state, Springfield, Illinois. Hereafter they will be cited as Ex.
Doc. In addition the house or senate bills to which they refer will be
cited as H. B. or S. B. as the case may be.
29i6s U. S., 150.
sr>Ex. Doc., May 8, 1905 ; H. B. No. 593.
91] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 91
tional grounds, Governor Palmer alone using it extensively on
grounds of policy.
After the first eight years of the period under considera-
tion vetoes became less frequent. During a period of twenty-
four years there were only ten vetoes on constitutional grounds.
At about half of the legislative sessions there were none. At
other sessions the number varied from one to two. Beginning
with the legislative session of 1903, the number increased for a
time very rapidly from five in 1903 to four, eleven, and twenty-
seven in 1905, 1907, and 1909 respectively, falling again to nine,
seven, and one in 1911, 1913, and 1915, respectively.31
Constitutional vetoes will be classified and discussed on the
basis of the article of the constitution with which they have been
considered to conflict. Here they will be further classified ac-
cording to the sections or specific provisions involved wherever
possible. No attempt will be made to discuss them all.
Wherever several conflicts with the same provision have occurred
they will simply be enumerated while only the most representa-
tive cases will be discussed.
Bill of Rights. — Twelve bills were considered to violate
article II, the bill of rights. Of these, six were said to conflict
with section 2, which provides that no person shall be deprived
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Two
were bills passed in 1909 relating to the disposal of unclaimed
property. One of the bills provided that a person absent for
seven years followed by public notice for one year should "be
presumed to be dead." It provided that administrators might
be appointed and that payment of debts owing to the absentee
to such administrators should bar his claim against the debtor
should he subsequently appear.32 The other was in relation to
unclaimed deposits in banks and trust companies. It provided
that after ten years such unclaimed deposits should be paid
into the state treasury, to be held there for the benefit of those
entitled to them. In his message of disapproval Governor De-
neen pointed out that it conflicted with the theory of the rela-
tion of the banker to the depositor. The relation, he said, was
not that of bailee or trustee, but of debtor. So far, therefore,
as the statute of limitation had run it was held to deprive the
banker of a property right. So far as the statute had begun to
run it was held to be a violation of contract. In addition it was
31 See table at the end of this chapter.
*2Ex. Doc., June 16, 1909; H. B. No. 56.
92 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [92
considered that so far as it applied to future contracts it was
a special act, relating to a particular class of debtors, and there-
fore void.33
The same year a bill concerning the property of extinct
churches, parishes, and religious societies was disapproved. It
provided that such organizations should be considered extinct
if for two successive years they should fail to hold regular re-
ligious services at least once a month for nine months out of the
year, or should have less than thirteen resident attendants and
supporters. The bill provided, further, that the central govern-
ing body of the church of which the congregation in question
was a member might take over the property and dispose of it as
it should see fit, or the local authorities might convey it to the
central church authorities without consideration. It was pointed
out that this bill did not provide a method whereby congrega-
tions might dissolve themselves, but that in fact it dissolved them,
and that regardless of whether they were incorporated or not.
It was held to violate the due process of law clause, in that it
did not provide for judicial procedure nor compensation. In
addition it was pointed out that it would doubtless also be held
to interfere with the freedom of religion.34
In 1911 a bill was disapproved which provided for state
inspection of apiaries. It was thought that the power granted
the inspector to destroy bees that in his judgment
were infected with dangerous diseases was unconstitutional. It
failed to require a notice or provide for a judicial hearing of
the case.35
Two years later an amendment was proposed to
the civil rights act. Its main object was to prohibit discrimina-
tion against negroes in the matter of sale of burial places in
cemeteries in the state. The terms of the bill were considered
to be too sweeping inasmuch as it would have applied to all
cemeteries whether publicly or privately owned.86
A more important veto made this same year involved a bill
for an amendment to an "act to provide for the incorporation
of cities and villages." It authorized the city council to estab-
lish residential districts, to forbid the construction of other than
. Doc., June 16, 1909; H. B. No. 439.
. Doc., June 15, 1909; S. B. No. 479.
s:>S. /., 1911, p. 1157; S. B. No. 131.
36//. /., 1913, p. 2159; //. B., No. 591. See also People v. Forest Home
Cemetery Co., 258 ///. 36.
93] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 93
residences in such districts, and to regulate the general character
of the buildings erected. Governor Dunne in disapproving this
bill maintained that such powers as it was here proposed to vest
in city councils could be exercised only under the police power,
and that the police power could be invoked only in protection
of the public safety, health, and general welfare. Illinois deci-
sions were cited to show that regulation of private rights for
mere aesthetic reasons could not be brought under the general
welfare clause, and that private property could not be arbitra-
rily interfered with unless the use of such property could be
shown to be injurious to others.37
Governor Deneen in 1907 disapproved a bill which proposed
to abolish the grand jury in certain cases. It provided
that a grand jury should be summoned at least once a
year in each county, at the first term of court, and that it might
be summoned at other times in cases of emergency or public
danger. At other times indictments might be made on informa-
tion in writing filed in the name of the state's attorney of the
proper county. This bill was held to conflict with section 8 of
the bill of rights, which requires indictment by grand jury for
serious offenses with certain exceptions, "Provided, that the
grand jury may be abolished by law in all cases." The bill in
question did not abolish the grand jury in all cases and was
therefore considered void.38
Four years later a bill was passed to authorize Cook county
to build a system of roads and boulevards. It provided that
for the purpose of condemning the land necessary the circuit or
probate court should, upon application from the county board,
appoint appraisers of the land to be acquired. But the court
was not required to accept the valuation of the appraisers. It
was authorized to refuse it and appoint new apprasiers. This
was considered to violate section 13 of the bills of rights, which
requires appraisal to be made by the jury.39
Three bills were disapproved as impairing the obligation of
contract. Two were in the early seventies and the third was in
1911. The first first was a bill in 1871 authorizing the taxation
of certain lands belonging to the Illinois Central Railroad Com-
pany. These lands had been exempted by the act ceding the
land for a certain length of time and upon certain conditions..
S7H. /., 1913, p. 2162; H. B. No. 411. See also City of Chicago v.
Gunning System, 214 ///. 628; Sign Works v. Training School, 249 ///. 436.
88£jr. Doc. June 4, 1907 ; H. B. No. 841.
*°S. /., 1913, P. 2293 ; S. B. No. 575-
94 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [94
Governor Palmer in disapproving the bill stated that the ques-
tion whether the Illinois Central Railroad had performed its con-
tract was a judicial one, and promised that he would proceed
to have the lands taxed to bring the matter into court.40
The second veto of this group grew out of the so-called
"tax grab" acts of 1865 and 1869. These acts had authorized
the registration of bonds issued for local subscriptions to rail-
road stock with the state auditor, making it the duty of the
proper state officials to collect the taxes raised therefor and pay
the interest to the bondholders. In 1875 a bill was passed
which provided that the interest should be paid where the bond
was issued and that local authorities might at their own option
levy the tax to pay it. This was held unconstitutional by Gov-
ernor Beveridge who believed that both of these provisions
altered the original contract.41
In 1911 a third bill was considered to violate the obligation
of contract. It authorized the authorities of cities and villages
to grant special privileges in the public parks to societies or
associations organized for charitable, benevolent, educational, or
religious purposes, and not for profit. The bill granted power
to authorize the construction of pavilions and other structures
necessary to carry out their purposes. Governor Deneen in dis-
approving the bill called attention to the fact that most of the
public parks of the state had been dedicated to public use. He
held that every citizen of the state has a right to free use and
enjoyment of a public park when desired, and that any disposal
of parks which would deprive him of it would be void.42
The last bill in conflict with the bill of rights to be consid-
ered here was passed in 1873. It was a bill to provide for regis-
tration of voters and to prevent election frauds. The reasons
for the disapproval given by Governor Beveridge were that it
restricted the freedom of election guaranteed by section 18 of
the bill of rights. In addition he held that it conflicted with
paragraph 15 of section twenty-two, article IV, which prohibits
special legislation in regard to elections.43
The Legislative Department. — Article IV of the constitu-
tion, dealing with the legislative department, has accounted for
by far the greatest number of bills disapproved on constitu-
*°Chicago Tribune, April 27, 1871 ; H. B. No. 3.
^Ex. Doc., April 19, 1875 ', H. B. No. 427.
*-Ex. Doc., May 29, 1911 ; 5. B. No. 409.
**Ex. Doc., May 7, 1873 ; H. B. No. 370.
95] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 95
tional grounds during the period 1870 to 1915. Of a total num-
ber of eighty-nine constitutional vetoes, fifty-four conflicted with
article IV. Sections 13 and 22, dealing with the title and pas-
sage of bills and prohibitions on special legislation respectively,
caused forty-three bills to be disapproved, the former twenty-two
and the latter twenty-one. Eight other sections caused the veto
of from one to three bills each.
The twenty-two bills regarded by the governor as conflict-
ing with section 13 of article IV may be further sub-divided
into four groups according to the specific provisions involved.
One was disapproved because it conflicted with the provision
that "every bill shall be read at large on three different days,
in each house." The particular bill in question had passed the
regular procedure in the senate. In the house of representa-
tives it was advanced to second reading immediately upon being
reported from the senate.44
Section 13 further provides that "no act hereafter passed
shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed
in the title. ' ' One bill was disapproved because it included more
than one subject. It was passed in 1883 and authorized rail-
road companies to extend their lines and construct branch lines.
In addition it authorized them to buy connecting lines.
Governor Hamilton disapproved this bill because he held thac
the latter provision made it unconstitutional under the provi-
sion cited above.45
No less than seventeen bills were disapproved because it
was held that the subject matter was not expressed in the title.
Only a few of the most representative ones will be discussed
here. In 1871 Governor Palmer disapproved "an act to repeal
the registry law and establish registration in cities, towns, raid
villages of 5,000 inhabitants or more and in counties having
100,000 inhabitants and upwards." The reason for the disap-
proval was that the body of the bill added "and in townships
and election precincts in which there are any such cities, town»,
and villages."48 In 1893 Governor Altgeld disapproved a bill
for "an act to provide for the organization of road districts,
etc." He gave as his reason the fact that while in the title it
purported to be a new law, in the body it was in fact an aiuend-
**Ex. Doc., April 24, 1899; S. B. No. 161.
™H. /., 1883, p. 1182; H. B. No. 504.
^Chicago Tribune, April 27, 1871 ; H. B. No. 6.
96 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [96
raent to an existing law.47 Governor Deneen in 1907 vetoed a
bill to repeal ' ' an act in regard to roads and bridges in counties
not under township organization," etc. The title of the bill, ne
said, failed even to attempt to express the subject matter in-
cluded.48
Only one more instance of this class will be noted. This
was a bill in 1909 proposing an amendment to "an act to revise
the law in relation to sentence and commitment of persons con-
victed of crime, and providing for a system of parole . . . . " The
original act directed the manner of imposing sentence. The pro-
posed amendment by permitting the jury to fix a maximum sen-
tence for certain crimes was thought by the governor to intro-
duce new matter not covered by the title as it stood nor covered
by the amended title.49
Section 13 further provides that "no law shall be revived
or amended by reference to its title only, but the law revived,
or the section amended, shall be inserted at length in the new
act. ' ' Three bills were disapproved as conflicting with this pro-
vision. The act of 1871 authorizing the city of Quincy to sub-
scribe $500,000 to the capital stock of the Quincy, Missouri and
Pacific Railroad Company has been discussed in connection wi'.h
bills passed over the veto. It was held to revive an old law by
title. Two bills were disapproved by Governor Deneen in 1909
because they amended certain laws by reference merely, not set-
ting forth in full the law as it was to read when amended.50
Governor Deneen in 1907 vetoed two bills because they c >n-
flicted with section 15 of article IV, which provides that mem-
bers of the general assembly shall not be eligible for civil ap-
pointments during their term of office. Both bills proposed to
create temporary commissions for certain purposes competed
partly of members of the general assembly.61
"Ex. Doc., June 22, 1893 ; S. B. No. 109.
4SEx. Doc., June 3, 1907 ; H. B. No. 814.
495. /., 1909, pp. 1125, 1175; S. B. No. 48. See also Executive Docu-
ments, April 17, 1899 (5". B. No. 32) ; May 13, 1903 (S. B. No. 106) ;
May 13, 1903 (H. B. No. 144) ; May 16, 1905 (H. B. No. 594) ; May 18,
1905 (H. B. No. 561) ; S. J., 1907, p. 1760 (S. B. No. 545) ; Ex. Doc's.,
June S, 1909 (S. B. No. 731) ; June 15, 1909 (5". B. No. 106) ; June 15,
1009 (S. B. No. 242) ; June 16, 1909 (H. B. No. 470) ; March 14, 1900
(H. B. No. 17) ; June 8, 1911 (H. B. No. 537) ; S. /., 1915, PP- 1674-1675
(S. B. No. 339).
50Ex. Doc., June n and 15, 1909; 5". B. No. 377, H. B. No. 243.
"S. /., 1907, p. 998 (S. B. No. 86) ; Ex. Doc., June 4, 1907 ; (//. B.
No. 713).
97] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 97
Sections 17, 18, and 19, dealing with public moneys and
appropriations, were involved five times. Three bills were dis-
approved as conflicting with section 17, which provides among
other things that "no money shall be drawn from the treasury
except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law." These
three bills were all passed in 1909. In each case there was an'
attempt to make an appropriation without stating the amount
definitely. In each case ' Governor Deneen objected that there
was no maximum limit set to the amount sought to be appro-
priated and that therefore the appropriations were not valid.52
Section 18 provides that "each general assembly shall pro-
vide for all the appropriations necessary for the ordinary and con-
tingent expenses of the government until the expiration of the
first fiscal quarter after the adjournment of the next regular
session, the aggregate amount of which shall not be increased
without a vote of two-thirds of the members elected to each
house " One bill was vetoed as conflicting with the
latter part of this provision. The extra session of the general
assembly in 1910 passed a bill making appropriation to carry on
certain state suits. Aside from the fact that the amount appro-
priated was entirely too small, Governor Deneen pointed out
that the bill had not received the required two-thirds vote of the
senate.53
In 1887 a bill was passed making an appropriation to pay
for furnishing the rooms occupied by the appellate court of the
first district of Illinois. The preceding general assembly had
by joint resolution appointed a committee to provide for the fur-
nishings, but no appropriation had been made. Governor
Oglesby in disapproving it called attention to section 19 of
article IV of the constitution which provides that "The general
assembly shall never . . . authorize the payment of any
claim, or part thereof, hereafter created against the state under
any agreement or contract made without the express authority
of law."54
Under the constitution of 1848 the general assembly had
gone to extreme excess in the matter of special legislation. The
constitutional convention of 1869, therefore, sought to prevent it
for the future. In addition to a general provision in section 22
of article IV, providing that in no case shall a special law be
^-Executive Documents, June 15 and 16, 1909; House Bills, Nos. 237,
239, 463. See also section 16 of Art. V, amendment of 1884.
53£*. Doc., March 14, 1910; S. B. No. 48.
**S. /., 1887, pp. 974, 992 ; S. B. No. 230.
98 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [98
enacted where a general law can be made applicable,53 they in-
cluded a list of twenty three specific subjects in regard to which
special laws could not be passed under any circumstances.
Twenty-one bills, eighteen of which came since 1900, were disap-
proved on account of conflict with some of these specific prohi-
bitions.
Paragraph 6 of section 22 prohibits regulation of county
and township affairs by special law. Three bills were disap-
proved because they were held to be in conflict with this provi-
sion. The first was a bill passed in 1871 which proposed to change
the time of electing certain officers in "Wayne county.56 The
other two were both passed in 1911. One was an amendment to
the Juul law concerning the levy and extension of taxes. The
bill classified school districts for the purpose of taxation on the
basis of their location in counties of certain population, which
was held to be unconstitutional.57 The other bill of this same
year was an amendment to the city election law. It allowed
judges and clerks of elections in cities located in counties of the
third class a compensation of eight dollars per day, while the
election officers in the rest of the state would not be entitled to
compensation. Governor Deneen in disapproving this bill called
attention to the decision of the supreme court in the primary law
case of 1910 where the court held that a law constituting one
law for Cook county and another for the rest of the state was
invalid.58
Paragraph 10 forbids the general assembly to incorporate
cities, towns, villages, or to change their charters by special act.
Governor Beveridge in 1874 disapproved a bill conflicting with
this provision. The bill in question proposed to empower the
city council in cities of 200,000 inhabitants or more to regulate
the price and quality of gas sold within their limits. The gov-
ernor held that the constitution did not recognize population as
a proper basis for the classification of cities and that therefore
this was a special act within the meaning of section 22 of article
IV of the constitution.59
55Held to be merely directory. See Owners of Land v. People, 113
III. 296.
™H. /., 1871, pp. 484-486, 585-586; H. B. No. 43-
57 Ex. Doc., June 10, 1911; S. B. No. 112.
5SS. /., 1911, p. 1637; 5". B. No. 83. See also People v. Election Com-
missioners, 211 ///. 9.
59£.r. Doc. April 2, 1878; 5". B. No. 596. Many acts classifying cities
on the basis of population have since been passed, e.g. Laws, 1897, p. 99;
1903, P- 97-
99] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 99
Paragraph 23 forbids the general assembly to grant to ' ' any
corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive
privilege, immunity or franchise whatever." Twelve bills were
disapproved because they conflicted with this provision. One
bill was disapproved in 1913, which favored veterans of the
Spanish-American and Phillipine wars in the matter of appoint-
ment to the civil service.60 Four were disapproved because they
proposed to grant special privileges to corporations. The first
was a bill passed in 1887 ostensibly to authorize the incorpora-
tion of building and loan associations, while in fact it was a
shrewd device to evade the usury laws of the state. It was easy
to become a member of the associations, "any needy borrower"
might enter. Money might be loaned by the organizations to
their members — the highest bidder being favored. It was
specifically provided that ' ' no premium, fines or interest on such
premiums that may accrue to said corporation under the act
shall be deemed usurious, but the same may be collectable as
other debts under the laws of the state."61 In 1909 a bill was dis-
approved because it granted fidelity and surety companies doing
business in Illinois the power to agree upon and fix uniform
rates.62 Two bills were disapproved, the one in 1883 and the
other in 1911, because they sought to extend the privileges of cer-
tain corporations established under special acts prior to 1870.63
Seven bills were disapproved because they proposed to
confer special privileges on certain associations. In all cases
certain boards were to be created. The objections arose in con-
nection with the manner in which they were to be constituted.
In all cases part of the members of the local boards were to be
appointed from nominees presented by private associations.
Only three of the most representative ones will be discussed
here. In 1903 Governor Yates disapproved a bill to provide for
the examination and registration of trained nurses, and the reg-
ulation of training schools. The chief objection to the bill lay
in the manner of constituting the board of examiners. It was
to be composed of the secretary of the state board of health and
three graduate nurses, appointed by the governor from nom-
inees of the Illinois Association of Graduate Nurses. The gov-
MS. /., 1913, p. 2294-, S- B. No. 471.
81#./., 1877, pp. 829-831 ; H. B. No. 26.
62Ex Doc., June 15, 1909; H. B. No. 616.
«3//. /., 1883, pp. 918-922; H. B., No. 47; Ex. Doc., June 10, 1911 (S. B.
No. 207).
100 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [100
ernor in vetoing this bill took occasion to protest against the
tendency toward "government by societies."64
The other two bills of this class were both vetoed by Gov-
ernor Deneen, the first in 1909 and the second in 1911. The
first was "an act to regulate the practice of chiropody in the
state of Illinois." It created a state board of chiropody com-
posed of four members appointed by the governor from the
nominees presented by the Chiropodists' Society of Illinois.
Governor Deneen held that this bill practically conferred the
power of appointment upon a private association. He called
attention to the fact that in Lasher v. People65 this had been
declared to be a franchise. The act was therefore void.66 The
second was a bill to provide for the purchase and maintenance
of Fort Chartres as a state park. The park was to be controlled
by a board composed of the governor, the secretary of state, the
state regent of the Daughters of the American Revolution, and
two other members of that organization.87
After the twenty-three specific prohibitions contained in
section 22 of article IV, comes a general prohibition that "In
all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, no
special law shall be enacted." Under this provision much spe-
cial legislation not specifically forbidden may be prevented.
Five bills were vetoed on the general ground that they were
special legislation, none of which, nevertheless, could be placed
definitely under any one of the twenty-three specific prohibi-
tions. Only two of these bills will be discussed here.
In 1905 "an act to require a stamp or label on every ball of
binder twine sold, offered, or exposed for sale within the state
of Illinois was disapproved as being special legislation. Gov-
ernor Deneen held it to be special legislation to single out a
special class of dealers for regulation. Two years later he vetoed
an act requiring certain employers to provide seats for female
employees. It applied to hotels, restaurants, retail, jobbing or
wholesale dry goods stores, dealers in notions, etc. The gov-
ernor objected to the fact that it did not include factories or
similar places employing female labor. He expressed appre-
. Doc., May 9, 1903 ; 5. B. No. 147.
65 1 83 ///. 226.
66H. /., 1909, pp. 1007, ion ; H. B. No. 86.
67 S. /., 1911, p. 1636; S. B. No. 154. See also Ritchie v. People, 155,
///. 98; Matthews v. People, 202 III. 389; Ex. Doc's., May 15, 1903 (S. B.
No. 158) ; May 18, 1903 (S. B. No. 214) ; June 14, 1909 (H. B. No. 654) ;
June 15, 1909 (5". B. No. 414).
101] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 101
elation of the need of such legislation, but held that it should be
done by general law.68
A bill providing for a limitation of actions upon official
bonds was disapproved in 1907% The bill in question limited the
time for bringing actions to five years. No exception was made
in cases of fraudulent concealment of violations of bond or ab-
sence from the state. Governor Deneen considered this repug-
nant to section 23 of article IV, which provides that the gen-
eral assembly shall have no power to release any one from a
liability to the state.69
Section 28 of article IV provides that ' ' no law shall be passed
which shall operated to extend the term of any public officer after
his election or appointment." Two bills were disapproved as
being repugnant to this section, one in 1873 by Governor Bever-
idge, the other in 1913 by Governor Dunne. The first was an act
to provide for the election of justices of the peace. It was an
attempt to displace the old special acts on this subject by a gener-
al law. The effect would have been to extend the term of office of
justices of the peace in counties under township organization by
one year. In the opinion of Governor Beveridge it was better to
have an over-supply of justices till the change could be effected
than to run the risk of having the act declared void.70 The sec-
ond case occurred forty years later. In a bill to amend the school
law of the state it was sought to change the time of election of
county superintendents. Pending the change it was proposed
to extend the terms of those in office from the first Monday in
December, 1914, to July 1, 1915.71
Section 32 provides that "the general assembly shall pass lib-
eral homestead and exemption laws." An amendment proposed
in 1874 to the act concerning roads and bridges in counties not
under township organization was deemed oppressive to a large
number of settlers. Governor Beveridge disapproved it as vio-
lating the "spirit" of section 32. 72
™Ex. Doc., May 18, 1905, (H. B. No. 578) ; June 5, 1907 (H. B. No.
757) ; June 10, 1009 (H. B. No. 608) ; June 16, 1909 (H. B. No. 528) ;
S. J., 1913, p. 2296 (S. B. No. 558). It must be noted that in Owners of
Lands v. People, 113 ///. 296, this provision was held to be directory
merely. It is for the legislature to determine whether a general act can
be applied, and its decision is not subject to judicial review.
60S. J., 1907, pp. 1761-1762; 5". B. No. 552; People v. Brown, 67 ///. 435.
™S. /., 1873, I, P. 413; S. B. No. 134.
T1H. /., 1913, p. 2165; B. B. No. 471.
72H. /., 1874, II, p. 645; H. B. No. 828.
102 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [102
In 1913 a bill for an act to consolidate the various govern-
mental authorities in Chicago was disapproved because in one of
its provisions it authorized the annexation of parks upon the ap-
proval of a majority of the votes cast on this question. Governor
Dunne pointed out that parts of these parks were outside the city
limits and that therefore, according to section 34 of article IV of
the constitution, it was necessary to gain the consent of the ma-
jority of the electors voting on the question in each of the partic-
ular districts affected.73
The Executive Department. — The veto power was invoked
only three times between 1870 and 1915 to protect the executive
department against encroachments on the part of the legislative
department. The parts of the constitution threatened were sec-
tions 8 and 13 of article V. Section 8 provides that the governor
may call the general assembly together in extraordinary session,
and that they can ' ' enter upon no other business except that for
which they were called together. ' ' Two bills were passed by the
extra session of 1910 conflicting with this provision. They both
concerned matters not included in the call.74
Section 13 invests the governor with the power to pardon,
subject to such regulations as the general assembly may make by
law in regard to the manner of applying. for pardons, etc. A bill
to authorize courts of record to suspend sentences and grant par-
dons in certain cases was disapproved in 1907 as conflicting with
this proivsion. It provided that in case a paroled convict should
have kept his parole inviolate for a term of five years the court in
question should enter an order for his discharge. Governor De-
neen deemed this order of discharge equivalent to a pardon — a
power which can be exercised only by the governor.75
The Judicial Department. — Six bills were disapproved be-
cause they conflicted with article VI on the judicial department.
One of these was a bill to amend the law in regard to the courts
of Cook county. It authorized the judges of the different grades
of courts to exchange places with one another. In the opinion
of Governor Cullom this was unconstitutional. He believed
that it was the intention of the framers of the constitution in
establishing various grades of courts to confine the judges of
each grade to their own business.76 Three bills were returned
™S. J., 1913, P- 2290; 5*. B. No. 304.
7iS. J., 1910, p. 185; S. B. No. 3; Ex. Doc., March 12, 1910; 5. B.
No. 44.
™S. /., 1907, pp. I758-I7S9; S. B. No. 421.
76Ex Doc., June 2, 1877 ; H. B. No. 301.
103] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 103
without approval because they proposed to delegate judicial
powers to non-judicial officers. The first was an act of 1872 in
regard to arbitration.77 The second was a bill of 1877 author-
izing attorneys at law to act as judges in certain cases and with
the consent of the parties involved.78 The third was a bill to
provide a method for the removal of encumbrances or cloud
upon the title to real estate. It authorized the recorder of deeds
to pass upon the validity of claims for the removal of defects of
title. Governor Deneen considered this a delegation of judicial
power and therefore void.79 In 1907 a bill was passed in which
it was proposed to amend the law in regard to roads and bridges
in counties under township organization. The bill was wholly
retroactive and proposed to dissolve certain writs of injunction
or orders restraining the opening of certain roads under the act
to be amended.80 One bill was disapproved because it was in con-
flict with section 29 of article VI of the constitution, which re-
quires, among other things, that the jurisdiction of all courts
of the same grade shall be uniform so far as regulated by law.
One bill in question conferred original jurisdiction upon county
courts in counties where probate courts had not been estab-
lished to supervise and control the testamentary trusts. The
effect would be to increase their jurisdiction by so much over
the jurisdiction of courts of the same grade in counties where
probate courts had been established.81
Suffrage — The Ballot. — Section 2 of article VII provides
that "all votes shall be by ballot." In 1897 Governor Tanner
disapproved a bill authorizing the adoption of voting machines.
In his opinion the use of the voting machine was not voting by
ballot. In addition he objected to the fact that inasmuch as its
adoption was left to the option of the county boards or county
commissioners it would lead to a lack of uniformity and con-
fusion.82 It may be noted that the use of voting machines has
since been authorized by law and upheld by the courts.83
Education — School Lands. — In 1907 a bill was passed au-
thorizing trustees of schools in any township in counties under
"£.*•. Doc., April 18, 1872; H. B. No. 760.
nS. J., 1877, pp. 851-852; H. B. No. 389.
™Ex. Doc., June 16, 1909; H. B. No. 604.
80H. J. 1907, p. 1820; H. B. No. 922.
slEx. Doc., June 9, 1911 ; tf. B. No. 660.
*2Ex. Doc., June 14, 1897 ; H. B. No. 230.
83Hurd, op. cit., 1913, pp 1132-1135; Lynch v. Malley, 215 ///. 574.
104 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [104
township organization to provide for the drainage of school
lands and to devote the income from the lands in question to
this purpose. Governor Deneen in disapproving this bill called
attention to section 2, article VIII, of the constitution, which
provides that "all lands . . . received for schools . . .
and the proceeds thereof, shall be faithfully applied to the ob-
jects for which such gifts or grants were made. ' ' He considered it
clear from the above provision that the income from school lands
could not be diverted for other purposes. Though the above
consideration formed the main objection to the bill, he believed
it might also be held to be unconstitutional as being special leg-
islation within the meaning of section 22 of article IV. In the
first place it did not apply to schools in counties not under town-
ship organization. In the second place, since school townships
coincide with congressional townships and may cross county
lines, the act could apply only to such school townships as lay
wholly within counties under township organization.84
Revenue and Taxation. — Four vetoes were made on account
of conflicts with article IX concerning revenue. Three were held
to violate section 3, which authorizes the exemption of certain
classes of property from taxation. One authorized taxation for
what was deemed not a public or corporate purpose. The three
conflicting with the exemption provision were passed since 1900.
The first was a bill passed in 1907 proposing to exempt the prop-
erty of fraternal beneficiary societies and associations, not car-
ried on for profit, from taxation. It sought to do this indi-
rectly by authorizing the subtraction of outstanding benefit cer-
tificates from the property and cash on hand. Since the out-
standing certificates would always exceed the latter amount,
there would be nothing left to tax. Governor Deneen disap-
proved this act on the ground that this class of associations did
not come under the exemptions clause of the constitution, and
that the general assembly could not do indirectly what it was
forbidden to do directly.85 Two cases arose in 1909. In one an
attempt was made to exempt certain property owned by Grand
Army posts. It was pointed out in the veto message that this
exemption was not authorized by the constitution.86 The other
bill of 1909 was a proposed amendment to the law in regard to
cemetery associations. It authorized the setting aside of funds
845\ /., 1907, pp. 748; S. B. No. 67.
85S. /., 1907, p. 1350; 5". B. No. 428. See also Supreme Lodge v.
Board of Review, 223 ///. 54.
. Doc., June 16, 1909 ; H. B. No. 491.
105] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 105
to be administered by trust companies for the purchase and
maintenance of burial lots. It authorized the investment of
these funds in safe securities, such investments to be exempted
from taxation. The governor in disapproving the bill said that
while cemeteries came under the exemption clause of the consti-
tution, funds not yet so devoted did not.87
Governor Palmer in 1871 disapproved a bill to authorize
"cities, villages and incorporated towns to contract for a supply
of water for public use, and to levy and collect a tax to pay for
water supplied." The governor was of the opinion that the
language of the bill would authorize taxation to subsidize a pri-
vate company. This would conflict with the constitution in that
it would not be taxation for public purposes within the meaning
of the document.88
Counties — Salaries of Officers. — Section 10 of article X of
the constitution provides that the county boards (except in Cook
county) shall fix the salaries of all county officers. A bill passed
in 1909 authorized circuit judges to appoint and fix the salaries
of assistant state's attorneys. Governor Deneen disapproved it
on the ground that since the constitution does not authorize the
general assembly to regulate the salaries of officers in question it
could not delegate that power to the circuit judges.89
Corporations. — Two bills, both passed in 1889, were disap-
proved on the ground that they were deemed to conflict with
article XI dealing with corporations. The first was a bill to
"authorize horse and dummy railways to change their motive
power." Governor Fifer believed this to be in conflict with sec-
tion 4 of article XI of the constitution, which provides that the
general assembly shall not authorize the construction or opera-
tion of any street railroad in any city, town, or incorporated
village without the consent of the proper local authorities. He
called attention to the fact that such authorities had the author-
ity to grant the power sought to be conferred by the bill in
question. The fact that the promoters of the bill had thought
it necessary to ignore the people and apply to a distant legis-
lature was considered an additional reason why the bill should
not become a law.90 The second was a special act "to organize
and regulate a state windstorm, tornado, and cyclone mutual
. Doc., June 16, 1909; 5". B. No. 512.
**H. J., 1871, II, pp. 985-987; H. B. No. 703.
89Ex. Doc., June 15, 1909; H. B. No. 697.
™Ex. Doc., June 14, 1889; H. B. No. 368.
106 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [106
insurance company." This bill was disapproved as conflicting
with section 1 of article XI, which forbids the creation of cor-
porations by special acts except in certain well-defined cases.91
Canals. — The experience of the state with internal improve-
ments, railroads, and canals led to the adoption of a provision
in the constitution of 1870, which, among other things, provided
that "The general assembly shall never loan the credit of the
state, or make appropriations from the treasury thereof, in aid
of railroads or canals: Provided, that any surplus earnings of
any canal may be appropriated for its enlargement or exten-
sion." A bill was passed in 1895 granting aid in promoting the
construction of water ways. In addition to unconstitutionality,
Governor Altgeld objected that the project contemplated would
involve an expenditure which, in his judgment, would exceed
fifty million dollars.92
Vetoes on Grounds of Policy
Altogether 170 bills were disapproved either wholly or in
part on grounds of policy during the period under consider-
ation. Of these 138 were vetoed in full. But for the reasons
stated above appropriation bills will be grouped together and
considered separately in connection with those vetoed in part.
The fluctuations in the number of policy vetoes during the
period from 1870 to 1916 followed closely the fluctuations in the
vetoes on constitutional grounds. Governor Palmer disapproved
five bills during the legislative session of 1871. Then followed a
period of twenty years when the veto power was but little used.
Governor Altgeld disapproved twenty bills on grounds of policy
during his four-year term from 1893 to 1897, ten during each of
the legislative sessions. Consistent and extensive use of the veto
power to enable the governor to participate in the formation of
state policy does not begin, however, before the opening of the
twentieth century. During the legislative session of 1901 Gov-
ernor Yates disapproved six bills. Since then the vetoes have
never fallen below nine during any regular session, running as
high as twenty and eighteen during the sessions of 1903 and 1915,
resepctively.93
In the following discussion of policy vetoes the bills under
consideration will be classified under the following nine heads:
. Doc., June 7, 1889 ; H. B. No. 546.
9zEx. Doc., June, 1895 ; 5". B. No. 457.
93For the exact distribution of these vetoes by years see the table
at the end of this chapter.
107] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 107
Administration of justice and court procedure, educational and
charitable institutions, taxation and revenue, private claims and
relief, government boards, cities and incorporated places, parks,
Lake Calumet, business and corporations. In addition there were
thirty-eight policy vetoes of micellaneous character which it has
been found impracticable to classify.
Fourteen bills affecting the administration of justice and
court procedure were disapproved. Only the most important
will be discussed here. Both Governors Deneen and Dunne dis-
approved bills making it unlawful to take pictures for ' ' rogues '
galleries" until after conviction. Both governors voiced the
opinion that it would greatly hamper the administration of crim-
inal justice.94
An amendment to the law relating to change of venue was
disapproved in 1911. It required judges to grant change of
venue upon application verified by the affidavit of the petitioner
only.95 In 1909 Governor Deneen disapproved a bill giving a
privileged character to confidential communications made by
patients to physicians and surgeons, barring them as evidence
in suits. He pointed out that the bill would work special hard-
ship on insurance companies, corporations, and individuals
against whom injury suits were made. In many of these cases
the statements of physicians or surgeons would be absolutely
necessary.98
In 1871 "an act to regulate the manner of applying for
reprieves, commutations, and pardons," was disapproved. It
required that the person suing for pardon should file a petition
in writing with the state's attorney in the locality where the
crime was committed at least three weeks before it should be
presented to the governor in order to give notice to the parties
interested in the case. Governor Palmer in disapproving this
bill said that many of these persons were old, feeble, and unable
to write. There were many cases, he thought, where it was
necessary for the governor to take the initiative, which would
be impossible under the proposed act.97
The general assembly in 1903 sought to amend the parole
law and restore the old system whereunder the jury fixed the
sentence. Governor Yates disapproved this bill, stating as his
. Doc., June 15, 1909; H. B. No. 633; H- ]., 1913, p. 1388; H. B.
No. 492.
65Ex. Doc., June 8, 1911 ; H. B. No. 412.
*«Ex. Doc., June 16, 1009 ; H. B. No. 478.
97S. J., 1871, II, pp. 320-323; S. B. No. 17.
108 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [108
reason that the indeterminate sentence law seemed to have oper-
ated satisfactorily and that at any rate it should not be re-
pealed till it had had a fair trial.98
A bill to amend the juvenile court law was disapproved in
1911. Governor Deneen gave as his reason that the effect of the
amendment would be "to destroy the exclusive jurisdiction of
the juvenile court in this class of cases and permit the trial of
cases of dependent, neglected, and delinquent children in courts
having general criminal and civil jurisdiction."
Seven bills have been classified under the general head of
educational and charitable institutions. Three of these dealt
with the common schools. One in 1901 authorizing consolidation
of township schools was disapproved because it did not apply
to districts of two thousand or more population. In addition it
was held objectionable in that it did not provide for transpor-
tion of children living within one mile of the school house.100
The other two were both amendments to the general school
law and both were passed in 1911. The first was a bill to author-
ize the trustees of schools to dispose of school lands in such man-
ner as they should see fit. It required the lands to be offered for
sale at least once every six months. After having been twice
offered they might be sold to the highest bidder. Governor De-
neen considered this too great a power to be placed in the hands
of the trustees.101 The second authorized boards of education to
appoint one or more school nurses to look after the health of the
children. But it failed to make proper requirement for qualifica-
tions for such positions.102
Four bills affecting the charitable institutions of the state
were disapproved on grounds of policy. Two of these, both
passed in 1883, will be discussed here. They made appropria-
tion for the three state hospitals for the insane, one 'of them
making large appropriations for the enlargement of the southern
and northern hospitals. Governor Altgeld in vetoing these bills
objected that the institutions were already too large to provide
. Doc., May 18, 1903 ; S\ B. No. 481.
"Ex. Doc., June 10, 1911 ; H. B. No. 124. For other examples of this
class see Executive Documents, June 17, 1889 (S. B. No. 114) ; May 14,
1901 (H. B. No. 464) ; May n, 1901 (S. B. No. 62) ; May 12, 1903 (H. B.
No. i/o) ; June 4, 1907 (H. B. No. 132) ; June 6, 1911 (H. B. No. 492) ;
House Journal, 1913, p. 2160; H. B. No. 161.
100£*. Doc., May 13, 1901 ; S. B. No. 165.
101£.r. Doc., June 8, 1911 ; H. B. No. 240.
102E*. Doc., June 8, 1911 ; H. B. No. 608.
109] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 109
the best conditions for curing the afflicted persons confined there.
While authorities on the subject had placed the maximum which
should be admitted to any one institution to obtain the best re-
sults at five hundred, he pointed4 out that there were already
from two to four times that number at some of the Illinois hos-
pitals. He felt that it was high time for the governor to set his
face against the tendency to enlargement of these institutions.103
Ten bills relating to taxation or revenue were disapproved. A
number of the most important will be presented here. The first
was an act to legalize defective assessments made during the
year 1870. It was disapproved by Governor Palmer. The ob-
tionable feature of this bill was a provision to authorize the
courts to fix the valuation in cases of protest. The governor be-
lieved that the result would be a tendency to nullify the work of
the assessors and throw assessments into the courts.104 In 1893
Governor Altgeld disapproved a bill authorizing cities of thirty
thousand inhabitants or more to levy special assessments to pro-
vide for street sprinkling. The chief objection was that no limit
had been set. Governor Altgeld declared that experience had
shown that city officials would rob the people unless their powers
of taxation were limited.105 Two other bills were disapproved
on the ground that they did not set proper limits to the taxing
power conferred. This was the case with an amendment pro-
posed in 1895 to the general school law. It was objected to as
practically removing all limits to taxation for school purposes.106
The other was an amendment proposed in 1915 to the law author-
izing towns and townships to establish parks and parkways. The
bill authorized park commissioners to raise the tax rate from one
to three mills, and provided no referendum. Governor Dunne
admitted the possibility that it might be desirable to raise the
tax rate to three mills in some localities. But he was sure it was
not desirable in others. His main objection to the bill was the
fact that it did not carry a referendum provision.107 Governor
Dunne also disapproved two bills reducing the fees collected
under section 31 of the public utilities act. He considered that
103£x Doc., June 21, 1893; Senate Bills Nos. 197, 405. For other
cases of this class see Ex. Doc's., May 18, 1905 (H. B. No. 330) ; June 15,
1909 (S. B. No. 431).
10*Chicago Tribune, April 27, 1871 ; H. B. No. 543.
. Doc., June 23, 1893.
. Doc., 1895 (June 15) ; H. B. No. 324.
1075. /., 1915, p. 1674; S. B. No. 274.
110 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [110
it would "materially" and "unreasonably" reduce the rev-
enue derived from that source.108
Private relief was denied in eighteen cases. Seven of these
were bills making appropriations for the benefit of members of
the Illinois national guard "injured while on duty," as was
alleged. Six of these were disapproved by Governor Yates, and
one by Governor Dunne. In four cases the bills were disap-
proved because the claims had been rejected by the court of
claims.109 Two bills making appropriations for one J. J. Block
to reimburse him for losses sustained by him and to pay the
value of horses killed under the direction of the State board of
live stock commissioners, were disapproved. The first of these bills
was passed in 1903. Governor Yates called attention to the fact
that the board of live stock commissioners had made an award
to Mr. Block. If the general assembly were to overrule the award
made by the state board it would set a bad precedent and open
up for a flood of similar claims. Two years later the same bill
was presented to Governor Deneen and rejected for the same
reason.110
Nine private claims of miscellaneous character were disap-
proved. Only three of the most important will be considered
here. The first was a bill passed in 1901 making an appropriation
of $28,000 to pay a balance alleged to be due to one William J.
Partello for labor and material furnished by him in the erection
of certain buildings for the state reformatory at Pontiac. This
bill was rejected by Governor Yates on account of the fact that
it had not been submitted to the court of claims.111 The second
was a bill making appropriation to pay one B. D. Dawson for
services performed by him as one of the assistant clerks of the
house of representatives of the thirty-fourth general assembly.
Governor Dunne in disapproving this bill called attention to the
fact that these services were alleged to have been rendered
twenty-eight years earlier. He was of the opinion that this claim
10SS. J., 1915, pp. 1673, 1674; Senate Bills Nos. 108, 347. For other
instances of a similar nature see Executive Documents, June 22, 1893
(S. B. No. 37) ; May 18, 1905 (H. B. No. 51) ; June 5, 1907 (H. B. No.
714) ; July 5, 1915 (S. B. No. 382).
109£x Doc., May 15, 1903 (Senate Bills Nos. 128, 136, 145) ; May 16,
1903 (Senate Bills Nos. 135, 161 ; House Bill No. 402); H, J., 1915, pp.
I390-I39I (H. B. No. 493).
110£*. Doc., May 15, 1903 (S. B. No. 160) ; May 18, 1905 (H. B.
No. 406).
Doc., May 13, 1901 ; H. B. No. 376.
Ill] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 111
should have been presented long before and said that he had not
in his possession sufficient evidence of the validity of the claim
to warrant him in approving it.112 The third was a bill passed
in 1915 making an appropriation of $9,788.66 to the Great West-
ern Serum Company of Chicago for losses of serum sustained by
them during the recent foot and mouth epidemic. Governor
Dunne in his veto message brought out the fact that this serum
had become worthless during a federal investigation into its
quality and that the federal authorities had rejected the claim
of the serum company for reimbursement.113
Governor Altgeld was the first to use the veto power to ex-
press disapproval of the tendency to create a multiplicity of
governmental boards. In this particular case it was proposed to
establish a state board to examine and issue certificates to horse-
shoers.114 In 1903 Governor Yates disapproved a bill to create a
state board of embalmers. He expressed the opinion that the
duties involved in the supervision and control of embalmers
could well be performed by the state board of health.113 Two
years later Governor Deneen frustrated an attempt to deprive
the state board of agriculture of control and supervision of the
matter of issue and registration of pedigrees of pure bred ani-
mals. It was proposed to vest the power to issue pedigrees to
certain licensed persons and associations.116
Five bills affecting cities and other incorporated places were
disapproved. A bill to authorize any incorporated place to dis-
solve itself was disapproved in 1905 because it did not sufficiently
guard the interests of creditors.117 Two bills proposing amend-
ments to the act authorizing annexation of territory were disap-
proved, one in 1905 and the other in 1907. Neither of these
bills protected sufficiently the interests of the people of the ter-
ritory sought to be annexed. In 1905 the property owners of the
territory in question were not even permitted to vote on the
112S". /., 1913, p. 2297; S. B. No. 610.
113//. /., 1915, pp. 1392-1393; H. B. No. 885. For other cases of this
general class see H. ] ., 1887, pp. 1202, 1229, 1234 (H. B. No. 658) ; Ex.
Doc's., May 16, 1903 (H. B. No. 449) ; June 16, 1909 (H. B. No. 472) ;
June 15, 1909 (H. B. No. 307) ; H. J., 1915, pp, 1389, 1390 (House Bills
Nos. 103, 116).
114E;r. Doc., June 24, 1895 ; S. B. No. 464.
115£#. Doc., May n, 1903; H. B. No. 245.
116£.r. Doc., May 18, 1905; 5". B. No. 21.
™Ex. Doc., May 18, 1905 ; H. B. No. 308.
112 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [112
question of annexation.118 In 1907 it was sought to reduce the
number of persons in such territory required to sign the petition
for annexation from a majority — which should also include a
majority of the property owners — to ten per cent of the legal
voters. Governor Deneen stated that under this bill it would
be possible to annex territory not only against the wishes of
the vast majority of the people affected, but also against the
wishes of every property owner in the district.119
Five bills affecting the Chicago parks were disapproved.
Three were bills to authorize the city council to open streets
through parks in certain cases. While thus ostensibly it was a
general act, it was in fact a proposal to authorize the opening of
a street through Humboldt park in Chicago. The first was passed
in 1903. Governor Yates disapproved it at the request of the
West Park commissioners of Chicago.120 Two years later a sim-
ilar measure was disapproved by Governor Deneen. He called
attention to the fact that park commissioners have the power
to build boulevards or drives through parks. He feared that
the construction of streets might cause permanent injury to the
parks.121 In 1911 this proposal came up a third time, and again
Governor Deneen disapproved it, for the same reasons which he
gave in 1905.122
Two bills concerning the submerged lands on the Chicago
lake front were disapproved. The first was a bill passed in 1897.
It granted the park commissiners of Chicago the right to acquire
the lake front and to fill in submerged lands for the purpose of
developing parks. The lands involved were of vast extent. There
was no limitation placed upon the power to condemn riparian
rights. Governor Tanner feared that the grant of this power
might endanger the shipping facilities of Chicago, though the
bill provided that the project was "not to interefere with the
navigation of public waters. "At any rate, the park commis-
sioners were not ready to start on the project. He therefore saw
no objection to letting the matter wait till some later session of
the general assembly.123 The second was a bill passed in 1905
118E:r. Doc., May 18, 1905; S. B. No. 232.
119£x Doc., June 5, 1907; H. B. No. 40. For other cases under this
general group see 5". /., 1913, p. 2297 (S. B. No. 283) ; H. J ., 1913, p.
2162 (H. B. No. 755).
120E*. Doc., May 12, 1903; H. B. No. 126.
. Doc., May 18, 1905 ; H. B. No. 82.
Doc., June 6, 1911; H. B. No. 192.
123E;r. Doc., June n, 1897; S. B. No. 364.
113] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 113
ceding the submerged lands in Cook county to the various cities
and villages. The governor did not believe that the municipal-
ities in question were ready to utilize the lands sought to be
ceded.124
At each of the last three sessions of the general assembly
a bill relating to Lake Calumet was disapproved. Two author-
ized the Chicago Sanitary district to construct a harbor in the
lake. The first was passed in 1911. Governor Deneen disap-
proved it because engineers were divided on the question whether
an outer or an inland harbor was most desirable. The bill
itself postponed the execution of the project at least five years.
The cost would vary from seven to eight million dollars. Under
these circumstances he thought it best to return the bill to
insure further consideration.125 His successor, Governor Dunne,
was confronted with a similar bill in 1913. It was disapproved
because it did not propose a concrete plan. There was no provi-
sion showing the approximate cost. In addition he urged that
the adjacent lands necessary to complete the project should be
condemned before the construction of the harbor had enhanced
their value.126 In 1915 the same subject came up in
a different form. A bill was passed to amend the so-called
O'Connor law relating to harbors and canals. The amend-
ment would have authorized Chicago to reclaim the lake and
to dispose of it for city purposes or by lease to private per-
sons. Governor Dunne disapproved it on the following grounds :
(1) It surrendered lands of enormous value to the city of Chi-
cago without compensation; (2) it did not sufficiently restrict
the power of the city to dispose of the reclaimed land, authoriz-
ing a ninety-nine year lease; and (3) it did not sufficiently pro-
tect riparian rights.127
In regard to business and corporations the veto power was
invoked seventeen times during the period under consideration.
Four bills in regard to the business of insurance were disap-
proved. Only two of these will be discussed here. The first was
an act of 1893 to compel fire insurance companies to pay the in-
sured in case of loss the total amount of the insurance as shown
by the policy. This bill had been passed as a result of a practice
to over-insure property. The agents getting their commission
. Doc., May 18, 1905; S. B. No. 161.
. Doc., June 10, 1911; H. B. No. 506.
126//. /., 1913, p. 1873 ; H. B. No. 38.
. Doc., July 5, 1915 ; S\ B. No. 295.
114 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [114
on the amount of the insurance written would insure property for
much more than it was worth. In case of fire the insurance com-
panies were accustomed to send an adjuster around to attempt
by fair means or foul to secure a settlement much below the
amount of the insurance actually carried. Governor Altgeld
in disapproving this bill expressed the opinon that it was founded
on a wrong principle. Insurance should simply enable the in-
sured to return to the same financial conditions as before the fire.
Under the proposed bill he would be tempted to over-insure his
property and might be in a position to profit by a fire. Experi-
ence in other states where similar laws were in force had shown
a tendency for fires to increase in number. This had in turn
caused a rise in insurance rates. The effect of such laws would
be to burden the honest and to enable the dishonest to profit.128
An act to authorize life insurance companies to conduct busi-
ness on the mutual or co-operative plan was disapproved by Gov-
ernor Dunne in 1915. The objections to this bill were three-fold :
(1) It lowered the reserve requirements to about one-half; (2)
it did not provide for control by the policy holders to offset the
lowered reserve requirements, failing to give them the right to
vote or otherwise influence the management; and (3) it was too
broad in scope, for under it the companies in question could go
into all lines of insurance, whether life, accident, health, or per-
sonal casualty insurance, any of which lines are now required
to maintain a reserve twice as large as that required of insurance
companies under the bill in question.129
Eight bills were disapproved because they authorized or en-
couraged the creation of monopolies. Three of these — one passed
in 1891, a second in 1895, and a third in 1909 — authorized hold-
ing companies. The first authorized corporations, organized or
to be organized for mining and manufacturing purposes and fur-
nishing material used in the construction or operation of rail-
roads, to own and hold shares in the capital stock of railroad
companies. Governor Fifer objected that there were no limita-
set as the amount of stock that might be held by such a corpora-
tion nor to the amount of material required to be furnished to
railroads to entitle it to the privilege sought to be granted.
The phrase "furnish material in the construction or operation of
railroads," he held to be simply a cloak to mislead members of
the general assembly while the real intention was to authorize a
v. Doc., June 24, 1893; •$"• B. No. 94.
T. /., 1915, pp. 1382-1383; H. B. No. 718. For other cases of this
class see H. J., 1913, pp. 1392, 2163; House Bills Nos. 797, 953.
115] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 115
i
monopoly. The bills of 1895 and 1909 authorized corporations
to buy stock in and absorb other corporations engaged in the
same line of business. Both Governor Altgeld and Governor De-
neen expressed strong disapproval of these attempts to authorize
the creation of monopolies.130
Governor Altgeld also disapproved four bills passed in 1895
authorizing public service monopolies in Chicago. Two of these
dealt with lighting and the other two with transportation. The
first of the two light bills provided that before the city council
could grant the privilege to lay gas pipes or to string electric
wires a petition must be presented signed by the owners of a
majority of the land frontage of each block in any street or alley
in which it proposed to authorize such privilege. While the bill
on its face was designed to prevent the granting of special priv-
ileges, Governor Altgeld in his veto message pointed out that
the existing Chicago companies possessed charters authorizing
them to string wires and lay pipes anywhere. The bill, there-
fore, was simply an instrument whereby these companies could
prevent the establishing of competing concerns. Later in the
same session a similar measure, altered so as to require the sig-
nature of the owners of the majority of the land frontage for
each mile of street instead of each block, as under the first bill,
came up again. This was likewise disapproved.131
Two complementary bills, the one concerning street railroads
and the other concerning elevated railroads, were vetoed by Gov-
ernor Altgeld in 1895. They authorized the city to grant
ninety-nine year franchises. The bill concerning street railroads
repealed an existing provision under which the owners of prop-
erty along a proposed route would be entitled to damages. Both
bills provided that a single property owner along a proposed
route could enjoin a new company by alleging that the petition
necessary was not signed by the required majority of the prop-
erty owners along the route. They provided that no new com-
pany should ever be granted the right to condemn any part or
anything pertaining to any existing road. Finally, both bills
specifically authorized consolidation of the existing roads. Gov-
130£.r. Doc's., June 18, 1891 (H. B. No. 336) ; June n, 1909 (S. B.
No. 286) ; S. /., 1895, p 779; S. 5. No. 362.
13 W. /., 1895, pp. 767, 770, 807, 854, 960, 1022, 1107, 1139; H. 5. No.
618; Ex. Doc., June 24, 1895; H. B. No. 801.
116 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [116
ernor Altgeld protested vigorously against these measures de-
signed to create a transportation monopoly in Chicago.132
Of the rest of the bills relating to business and corporations
only two will be discussed. The first act was passed in 1907 to
authorize the incorporation of investment companies — the so-
called home cooperative companies. Governor Deneen in his veto
message called attention to the fact that these companies had
caused a great deal of complaint in other states. They unduly
favored the early investors at the expense of those who came in
later. The business, he said, depended for its success very largely
upon the lapse of payments and consequent forfeiture of rights
on the part of late investors. The bill was considered contrary to
public policy and an attempt to swindle poor investors.133
In 1913 Governor Dunne disapproved a bill to amend the
law in relation to corporations. The sole purpose of the amend-
ment was to permit the incorporation of companies organized to
do real estate business. The governor in his message of disap-
proval said, ' ' the policy of the state, for forty years and upward,
has been opposed to the granting of such rights to corpora-
tions.134 It will be recalled that Governor Oglesby laid the
foundation for this policy by his vetoes of 1867.135
There were, in addition to the several sub-classes of policy
vetoes discussed above, thirty-four bills of miscellaneous char-
acter, which were vetoed on various grounds of policy. Only
four will be discussed here. In 1879 Governor Cullom disap-
proved an ' ' act to protect laborers, miners, mechanics, and mer-
chants." It was an act to prevent the so-called truck system in
payment of employees. It forbade companies to pay their la-
borers in commodities. It even prohibited them from advancing
supplies on the credit of the employee's labor, unless a specific
contract had been entered into. The governor pointed out the
fact that much labor was sold by the month and that the laborer
was often in need of advances. If his credit was good he could
go anywhere, but if it was not, it would be unjust to prohibit
1325". /., 1895, pp. 624, 773, 793, 998-999 J Senate Bills Nos. 137, 138.
See also Ex. Doc., May 18, 1905 (H. B. No. 630) for another example
under this general class.
1SSS. J., 1907, p. 1756; S. B. No. 257.
13*5. /., 1913, p. 2292; S. B. No. 408. For other vetoes see Ex. Doc's.,
June 22, 1893 (S. B. No. 336) ; May 18, 1905 (S. B. No. 116) ; 5". /., 1907,
p. 1759 (S. B. No. 539).
135See Chapter III.
117] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 117
him to obtain credit from his employer, which it was sought to
do by the bill in question.136
An amendment to the statute of limitations was disapproved
by Governor Hamilton in 1883. Among other things the bill
extended the statute of limitations to instruments payable on
demand, the statute to run from the date on the face of the
paper. He called attention to the fact that the most common
form of this class of commercial paper was the certificate of
deposit. Money on deposit often carried no interest. He consid-
ered it unjust that banks which had had the free use of money
should be enabled to claim the principal simply because it had
not been asked for. He suggested that it would be proper to have
the statute run from the date of presentation.137
A bill for an employers' liability act was disapproved in
1911. It set aside or modified the old common law defenses of
the employer, namely, the defences of (1) contributory negli-
gence, (2) the fellow servant rule, and (3) the assumption of
risk. Governor Deneen disapproved of this bill because a work-
men 's compensation act had been pased by the same session, em-
bodying the results of the work of a commission composed of
representatives both of labor and capital. The governor was of
the opinion that it ought to be given a fair trial before other
laws on the subject were enacted. In addition he pointed out
the fact that the employers' liability act was unconstitutional in
that it exempted agricultural laborers.138
A very interesting case arose in 1913. A bill was passed
legalizing certain elections held under the law authorizing the
organization of park districts. It provided that such elections
held at "indefinite times and places" have been "duly and legally
held, and the ballot used thereat is hereby declared to be in due
form of law," etc. In addition to being bad policy, Governor
Dunne doubted the power of the general assembly to make legal
an act or acts that might have violated the constitution as well
as existing statutes.139
Doc., June 5, 1879; H. B. No. 75*-
. Doc., June 25, 1883; 5". B. No. 52.
-. Doc., June 10, 1911; 5". B. No. 401. See also People v. Butler
Street Foundry, 201 ///. 266; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184
U. S. 540.
139//. /., 1913, p. 2166; H. B. No. 356 . For thirty other examples of
this class of miscellaneous policy vetoes see Executive Documents, April
18, 1872 (H. B. No. 729) ; June 7, 1889 (5. B. No. 114) ; June 19, 1891
(H .B. No. 73) ; Senate Journal, 1893, pp. 872, 895 (S. B. No. 205) ; Ex.
118 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [118
Vetoes of Appropriation Bills.
A separate classification of appropriation bills has been
thought advisable in order to permit consideration of the veto
of such bills in whole or in part. It has been thought desirable
to discuss the veto of items in connection with appropriation
bills vetoed in full, for the reason that both classes of vetoes
have usually been made on grounds of economy. The bills in
this general class will be discussed under two general heads : (1)
bills vetoed in full and (2) bills vetoed in part.
The following table shows the increase in appropriations
made by the general assemblies of Illinois from 1880 to the pres-
ent time : —
IV. TABLE OF STATE APPROPRIATIONS, 1881-1915
1881-1883 32nd General Assembly $ 6,605,391.61
1883-1885 33rd General Assembly 7,342,742.03
1885-1887 34th General Assembly _ 7,776,458.54
1887-1889 35th General Assembly 7,940,412.69
1889-1891 36th General Assembly 7,396,737.30
1891-1893 37th General Assembly 8,757,901.15
1893-1895 38th General Assembly 9,032,514.49
1895-1897 39th General Assembly 10,055,800.41
1897-1899 40th General Assembly 11,178,902.00
1899-1901 41st General Assembly _ 12,512,113.89
1901-1903 42nd General Assembly 12,773,686.12
1903-1905 43rd General Assembly 15,467,316.00
1905-1907 44th General Assembly 16,165,648.70
1907-1909 45th General Assembly 20,208,146.23
1909-1911 46th General Assembly 20,330,042.29
1911-1913 47th General Assembly 29,540,195.03
1913-1915 48th General Assembly 37,906,593.93
1915-1917 49th General Assembly 46,349,326.17*
*These figures include only the appropriations made by the regular
session of 1915.
Doc., June 22, 1893 (H. B. No. 24, S. Bs. Nos. 173, 364) ; 5". /., 1895,
p. 796 (S. B. No. 106) Ex. Doc., June 17, 1895 (H. B. No. 472) ;
June 24, 1895 (S. B. No. 141) ; June 10, 1897 (S. B. No. 297) ; May n,
1901 (H. B. No. 713) ; May 14, 1901 (H. B. No. 322) ; May 15, 1903
(S. B. No. 156) ; May 15, 1903 (H. B. No. 275) ; May 18, 1905 (S. Bs.
Nos. 296, 421); S. J., 1907, pp. 1756-1757 (S. B. No. 362); Ex. Doc's.,
May 22, 1907 (H. B. No. 845) ; May 25, 1907 (H. B. No. 65) ; May 27,
1907 (H. B. No. 314) ; June 3, 1907 (H. B. No. 609) ; June 15, 1909
(H. B. No. 320) ; June 16, 1909 (H. B. No. 585) ; June 10, 1911 (H. B.
119] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 119
Appropriation Bills Vetoed in Full. — The rapidly expand-
ing appropriations made by the general assembly since 1900
called forth a series of vetoes on grounds of economy. Seventeen
bills were disapproved in full on this ground, all since 1900.
Under the forty-third general assembly, when appropriations
increased by about $2,694,000 over the appropriations made by
the preceding assembly, Governor Yates vetoed six bills in full
on grounds of economy. He undertook to reduce the appropri-
ations by about $1,000,000. The veto fell on two bills increasing
salaries — one to increase the salaries of certain grades of judges,
and the other to increase salaries of members of the general as-
sembly.140 Two bills vetoed were for public buildings — one to
make repairs on the capitol and the other to authorize an im-
provement at the Western Illinois State Normal School.141 The
two remaining were of less importance — one was an appropria-
tion to purchase a park in Ogle county and the other to build a
monument to certain persons killed in the Black Hawk war.142
In the forty-fourth general assembly appropriations were
increased only $600,000, and Governor Deneen disapproved only
two bills in full on grounds of economy. One of these was an act
to increase the fees of county officers, the other was a bill to
authorize the erection of a monument to the Illinois soldiers
fallen on the battlefield of Kenesaw Mountain.143 During the
following general asembly appropriations were increased by over
four million dollars. Governor Deneen, anxious to keep down
the tax rate, disapproved two bills in full on grounds of economy.
One was a bill to appropriate $60,000 to establish a surgical
institution for children. The other appropriated $386,000 to the
University of Illinois to acquire a building for the Medical Col-
lege.144
During the second term of Governor Deneen, covering the
period of the forty-sixth and the forty-seventh general assem-
blies, 1908-1912, no bills were vetoed either in full or in part on
No. 603) ; H. ]., 1913, P- 2165 (H. B. N0. 842) ; H. J., 1915, PP- 1388,
1391-1392 (H. Bs. Nos. 199, 565) ; S. J., 1915, PP. 1673-1674 (S. B. No.
139) ; Ex. Doc., July 5, 1915 (S. B. No. 432).
140£#. Doc., May 11, 1903 (H. B. No. 195) May 14, 1905 (H. B.
No. 59).
141£*. Doc., May 16, 1903 (H. B. No. 848, S. B. No. 436).
uzEx. Doc., May 16, 1903 (House Bills Nos. 426, 751). .
143£;r. Doc., May 18, 1905 (House Bills Nos. 154, 188).
1445\ /., 1907, p. 1755 (S. B. No. 120) ; Ex. Doc., June 4, IQO7 (H. B.
No. 4).
120 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [120
grounds of economy. This is not strange during the period of
the forty-sixth general assembly, as that body appropriated only
about a hundred thousand dollars more than the preceding as-
sembly. But the forty-seventh general assembly more than offset
this tendency to economy, for it appropriated $29,540,195.03 — or
over nine million dollars more than its predecessor. Since then
appropriations have increased by similar amounts, rising to
$37,906,593.93 in 1913 and to $46,349,326.17 in 1915.
Governor Dunne also attempted to keep appropriations down
by means of the veto. Most of this was done by disapproving
items in appropriation bills, which will be discussed later in this
chapter. During 1913 he disapproved five bills in full on grounds
of economy. None of these were of any great importance, how-
ever, from the standpoint of the amount of money saved. One
was a bill to authorize the purchase of the Logan home.145 Two
were bills making small appropriations for the support of the
Illinois farmers' institutes.146 Two were bills making appropria-
tions for legislative commissions of investigation, both of which
the governor thought were not essential.147 In 1915 a bill author-
izing the centralization in the state historical library of the re-
turns of elections held prior to 1870 was disapproved on account
of the expense involved.148 A second bill was disapproved in
1915. It provided for the payment of $1200 to incorporated
soil and crop improvement associations in each of the 102 coun-
ties in the state. This might have involved a heavy drain on the
treasury. Governor Dunne in disapproving it called attention
to the heavy appropriation already incurred for agricultural
purposes on account of the foot and mouth disease.149
Appropriation Bills Vetoed in Part. — It is a remarkable fact
that although the power to disapprove items in appropriation
bills had been granted the governor in 1884 only one instance
of its use occurred before 1903, namely, in 1899. In that year
. /., 1913, p. 2163 ; H. B. No. 401.
146//. /., 1913, pp. 2161, 2166; House Bills Nos. 339, 437.
147H. /., 1913, p. 2164; H. B. No. 838; S. /., 1913, p. 2296; 5. B.
No. 677.
148H. /., 1915, p. 1389; H. B. No. 494.
/., 1915, P. 1397; H. B. No. 26.
121] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 121
Governor Tanner disapproved eight items in the university ap-
propriation bill. The appropriations vetoed amounted to $99,-
166.61, and were to have been devoted mainly to the acquisi-
tion of land, the construction of buildings, and the purchase of
equipment.150
Since 1903 the number of bills disapproved in part has had
a tendency to increase, running from four to six for each general
assembly. However, during Governor Deneen's second term,
1908-1912, no financial vetoes of any sort were made. In 1915
Governor Dunne disapproved ten bills in part.
The number of items disapproved is of more significance
than the number of bills affected. They show a great deal of
variation, running as low as eight and nine in 1899 and 1907,
respectively, and as high as seventy-six and eighty-six in 1913
and 1915, respectively.
There is a close relation between the growth of this phase of
the veto power and the growing expenditures of the state. A
glance at the table above will show that while appropriations
almost doubled between 1880 and 1900, they increased almost
four-fold between 1898 and 1915. Under the forty-first general
assembly, where expenditures ran up by something over
$1,250,000, Governor Tanner reduced the appropriations by a
little over $99,000. Under the following general assembly there
was little increase and no vetoes. Under the forty-third there
was a marked increase again, and during that session Governor
Yates vetoed items amounting to a little over $192,000.m
Governor Deneen during his first term made vigorous efforts
to reduce expenditures by means of the veto power. Appropria-
tions of over $17,000,000 were reduced very materially by vetoing
items carrying appropriations of something over $845,000.152
During the following biennium appropriations of over
$21,500,000 were reduced to something over $20,200,000. Items
amounting to $632,500 were disapproved.153 But while Governor
1899.
151Governor Yates also reduced the appropriations of that year by
vetoing bills in full carrying about $805,000. It will be recalled that he
set out to reduce appropriations by about $1,000,000.
152See Laws, 1905 for appropriation bills vetoed in part. Besides the
$845,930 indicated above, Governor Deneen slightly reduced the appro-
priations by vetoing two minor bills in full.
158See Laws, 1907; S. J., 1907, pp. 1754, 1755, 1757, 1759- In addition,
appropriations were reduced by something over $751,000 on account of
bills vetoed in full on grounds of economy.
122 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [122
Deneen had cut appropriation bills heavily during his first term,
he did not reduce them by a single dollar during his second.
Under the forty-sixth general assembly there was less need for
this, for it had increased appropriations but slightly over
$120,000. In the next biennium, however, an increase of over
$9,000,000 took place.
During the following four years, under Governor Dunne's
administration, appropriations continued to mount at an unpre-
cedented rate. Items amounting to $1,040,000 and $1,925,000
were vetoed in 1913 and 1915, respectively.154
The appropriations vetoed, with the exception of two small
items aggregating less than $12,000, may all be classified under
six great heads :
(1) Appropriations to higher educational institutions.
This includes appropriations to the university and to the state
normal schools. It will be recalled that the first use of the veto
power to disapprove items in appropriation bills was made by
Governor Tanner against the university. A total of $772,000
has thus been disapproved, about $320,000 of which have been
university appropriations.155
(2) Appropriations to charitable and reformatory insti-
tutions. The total disapproved was something over $1,243,000.
From 1903 to 1915, except during Deneen 's second term, when
there were no such vetoes, the amounts thus disapproved varied
considerably, running as high as $482,150 in 1905, and as low as
$79,707.76 in 1915.156
(3) Appropriations to the Illinois national guard were
reduced by $286,280 during the four regular sessions of the
general assembly held in 1905, 1907, 1913 and 1915. During
the last four years the items vetoed have been appropriations
made for armories and sites.157
(4) State aid to agriculture. This class of appropriations
was reduced by $283,750 in the years 1905, 1907 and 1915. Most
*5*Laws, 1913, p. 29; H. J., 1913, pp. 2156, 2160, 2161, 2166; 5". /., 1913,
p. 2297; H. J., 1915, pp. 1383-1394; S. J., 1913, p. 1675.
*55Laws, 1899; Laws, 1903, pp. 59, 60, 63; Laws, 1905; Laws', 1907;
S. J., 1913, P- 2297; H. J., 1915, pp. 1386-1387.
*56Laws, 1903, pp. 30 ff. ; Laws, 1905; Laws, 1907; •$"• /., 1907, p.
1754; H. J., 1913, p. 2161; H. J., 1915, p. 1391-
*57Laws, 1905; Laws, 1907; H. J., 1913, p. 2166; H. J., 1915, pp. 1389,
1675-
123] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 123
of these items were for improvements on the state fair
grounds.158
(5) State aid to public roads. The total amount disap-
proved has been $1,050,000. In 1913 an appropriation of
$300,000 for each of the years 1913 and 1914 was cut in half.
In 1915 Governor Dunne vetoed the whole appropriation made
for this purpose on the ground that there was $600,000 unex-
pended money for this purpose in the treasury which had been
re-appropriated.159
(6) General appropriations for the state government.
Vetoes of items of these bills are of recent occurrence. The total
amount vetoed has been $1,087,800. Of this only $35,000 was
before 1913. The appropriations for the various departments,
boards, and commissions, evidently made on the basis of liberal
estimates by the officials themselves as to their own needs, were
materially reduced by Governor Dunne. The total amount
vetoed in 1913 was $244,650.160 In 1915 items of this class
amounting to $808,150 were disapproved. Of the latter amount
the veto of $384,000 — an appropriation for increased salaries
of the judges of the supreme and superior courts — was ex-
plained by the fact that the bill authorizing the increase in salary
had failed to pass.101
The amendment of 1884 authorizes the governor to veto
"distinct items" in appropriation bills. This power was grad-
ually interpreted so liberally by the governor as to include the
power to reduce distinct items. This was done in two ways:
(1) by disapproving the phrase "per annum" in appropriations
running for more than one year, and (2) by the outright reduc-
tion of items. The first instance of the reduction of an item by
the governor of Illinois took place in 1907. A bill making appro-
priations for certain charitable institutions was disapproved in
part. In an item "for improvements of grounds and farm,
$10,000 per annum; $20,000," Governor Deneen disapproved
"Item: $10,000 for the second year of the biennial period."162
There were no other instances of this use of the veto power in
1907.
It will be recalled that Governor Deneen did not veto any
appropriation bills during his second term, 1908-1912. Not
158Lcratf, 1905; S. J-, 1907, P- 1757; H. /., 1915, PP- 1389, 1393-
159H. /., 1913, P- 2160; H. ]., 1915, pp. I393-I394-
160H. /., 1913, P- 2156.
»«H. /., 1915, PP- 1383-1388.
™2S. /., 1907, P- 1754-
124 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [124
till 1913, therefore, did the practice of reducing items in appro-
priation bills recur. Governor Dunne, during the legislative
session of 1913, cut several appropriations in half by disap-
proving the phrase "per annum."163 This practice was contin-
ued to still greater extent in 1915.164 In addition, in the latter
year, he reduced outright a large number of important appro-
priations. The method employed will be illustrated by the fol-
lowing example : In " an act making appropriation of additional
sums for the completion of armories now under construction" a
reduction was made by the governor. In his message of disap-
proval he said, "In section 1, item: 'Eighth Infantry Chicago,
$75,000.00,' I approve this item in the sum of $60,000 and veto
and withhold my approval of all the sum in said item in excess
of $60,000. "165 Many similar reductions were made during the
same session.168
In the case of Fergus v. Bussel decided by the supreme
court of Illinois in December, 1915, both of these practices were
held unconstitutional. The court held that the legislature has
the right to determine the amount of money to be appropriated.
The governor can only approve or disapprove. This power car-
ries no right to reduce an item by disapproving the words "per
annum" or approving a portion of an item and disapproving
the remainder. The court did not define the words "item" and
' ' section, ' ' evidently not regarding it necessary in order to reach
a decision in the case before them. Justice Cooke, who delivered
the opinion said: "We think it clear that the power given the
governor by the constitution to disapprove of and veto any dis-
tinct item or section in an appropriation bill does not give him
the power to disapprove of a part of a distinct item and approve
the remainder. To permit such a practice would be a clear en-
croachment by the executive upon the rights of the legislative
department of the state."167 On the other hand, the contention
163H. /., 1913, PP- 2156 ff.
164H. /., 1915, PP- 1383-1386, 1389 ff.
165H. /., 1915, p. 1389; Laws, 1915, p. 91.
166H. /., 1915, pp. 1383-1386, 1391; S. J., 1915, P- 1675; Laws, 1915,
pp. 200 ff.
1G7Fergus v. Russell, 270 III. 304, 348. In the Pennsylvania case where
the court upheld the power of the governor to reduce items, the facts in
the case, as distinguished from abstract principles of constitutional law,
may have had a good deal of influence on the decision. It appears that
the appropriation bill in question was not sufficiently itemized. Com. v.
Barnett, 199 Pa. 161.
125] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 125
of the counsel for Mr. Fergus that the effect of an attempt to
reduce items would operate to veto the whole item was not up-
held. The court held that since the attempted veto was uncon-
stitutional the whole amount should be permitted to stand.
Vetoes of Defective Bills
The term defective has been considered broadly as in
the preceding chapters. It includes, in addition to the bills
defective in drafting, bills carrying conflicting provisions as
well as ineffective and superfluous legislation. During the
period under consideration, thirty-eight bills were disap-
proved on account of defectiveness. Of these only six were dis-
approved before 1900, not more than one such bill having
been returned to any one general assembly. Since 1900
vetoes of this kind have increased in number, especially after
1904. Each general assembly has had one or more vetoes on
this ground. The highest number reached was in 1909 when
eight were returned on acount of defectiveness.
Seven bills were disapproved because serious errors had
been made in drafting them. Only three examples will be dis-
cussed here. In 1905 an amendment to the law regarding assess-
ment of property was disapproved because the title of the bill
referred to certain sections not found in the law.168 Two years
later an amendment to the act creating the Chicago sanitary
district was disapproved. The title of the bill was ' ' An act to
amend . . . 'an act to create sanitary districts and remove
obstacles in the Des Plaines and Illinois rivers/ " etc. The bill
was disapproved because it did not accurately describe the
original act, the title of which had the word "to" before the
word "remove" and carried the word "obstructions" instead
of "obstacles" as in the proposed bill.169 In 1911 a bill to
amend the law relating to drainage districts was disapproved
because about three lines of the bill as it had passed the house
of representatives had not been acted upon by the senate. It
was considered, therefore, that the houses had not acted on the
same bill.170
Seven bills have been classed as conflicting legislation, either
. Doc., May 18, 1905; H. B. No. 489.
U9S. /., 1907, p. 412; S. B. No. 83.
170//. /., 1911, p. 1499; H. B. No. 575. For five other bills of this
class see Ex. Doc., May n, 1901 (S. B. No. 219) ; May 18, 1905 (S. B.
No. 179) ; May 27, 1907 (H. B. No. 60) ; H. J ., 1913, p. 2164 (H. B. No.
709).
126 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [126
because they carried mutually conflicting provisions or conflicted
with existing laws or bills passed by the same general assembly.
Three representative cases will be discussed. In 1907 an amend-
ment to the law relating to assessments was disapproved. The
existing law required the board of review to meet on the third
Monday in June and adjourn on or before September 7th. The
bill in question proposed to grant the county judges until July
1st to make the appointments of two members from each county
to serve on the board.171 In 1915 Governor Dunne disapproved
an amendment to the assessment law and the law concerning
fees and salaries, respectively. The two bills carried conflicting
provisions. Since the governor was not sure what the general
assembly intended he disapproved them both.172
Under the head of ineffective legislation have been placed
five bills which for one reason or another would have proved
inadequate for the purposes for which they were enacted. Only
two, passed in 1909, will be discussed here. The first was an act
to protect gravel and macadam roads, in which it was sought to
regulate the weight of load — including wagon — that might be
hauled on such roads at certain seasons of the year. For this
purpose wagons were roughly classified according to width of
the tire, and arbitrary maximum loads were authorized for each
class. The bill would have tended to defeat its own purpose.
The governor pointed out that while the ratio of the weight of
the load to the width of the tire is the true criterion, this bill
would actually have authorized a heavier load per inch width
on narrow tired wagons than on those with wider tires.173 The
second bill was an attempt to provide a pension fund for em-
ployees in houses of correction in cities of fifty thousand or more
inhabitants. It authorized such employees to pay into the fund
two per cent of their annual salaries, and entitled them after
twenty years ' service to a pension of $480 per year. It provided
for no other income for the fund. Governor Deneen pointed out
that on the basis of the highest salaries paid such employees a two
per cent payment to the fund would not yield more than twenty-
four dollars annually. That would amount to a total maximum
payment in twenty years of $480 besides the accumulated inter-
m£.r. Doc., May 20, 1907; //. B. No. 699.
17 -S. J., 1915, p. 1672; Senate Bills Nos. 7, 39. For other examples of
this class see H. /., 1889, p. 459 (H. B. No. 232) ; Ex. Do?*., June 3,
1879 (5". B. No. 106) ; May 18, 1905 (S. B. No. 225) ; June 7, 1911 (H. B,
No. 297).
173£.r. Doc., June 15, 1909; H. B. No. 45.
127] THE VETO POWER SINCE 1870 127
est. The payment of a $480 annual pension would, therefore, be
impossible.174
Nineteen bills have been classed as superflous legislation.
Five of these were disapproved because they were exact duplicates
of other bills passed by the same general assembly and approved
by the governor.175 Eleven others were considered superflous
because the subject matter had been dealt with more satisfac-
torily by other bills passed at the same session of the general
asembly.176 Three were disapproved because they were regarded
as unnecessary, existing laws being regarded sufficient for the
purposes sought to be accomplished.177
17*Ex. Doc., June 15, 1909; S. B. No. 226. For other examples of
this class see Executive Documents, April 24, 1899 (H. B. No. 775) ; June
16, 1909 (H. B. No. 186) ; June 6, 1911 (H. B. No. 33).
^Executive Documents, May 26, 1877 (H. B. No. 25) ; June 19, 1893
(S. B. No. 199); May 11, 1901 (H. B. No. 413); May 15, 1903 (H. B.
No. 220) ; S. /., 1913, p. 687 (S. B. No. 197)-
176//. /., 1874, p. 301 (H. B. No. 336) ; H. J ., 1879, P- 852 (H. B.
272) ; Ex. Doc., June 3, 1907 (H. B. No. 317) ; June 12, 1909 (H. B.
No. 474) ; June 15, 1909 (H. B. No. 74) ; June 15, 1909 (H. B. No. 701) ;
June 16, 1909 (S. B. No. 244) ; June 16, 1909 (H. B. No. 381) ; S. /.,
1911, p. 1637 (S. B. No. 417) ; Ex. Doc., June 14, 1912 (S. B. No. 8) ;
H. J., 1915, P. 1389 (H. B. No. 561).
177£x Doc., June 2, 1879 (S. B. No. 243) ; May 18, 1905 (H. B.
No. 550) ; S. J., 1913, p. 2291 (S. B. No. 330).
128
THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS
[128
V. TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF BILLS VETOED, THE!
ACTION TAKEN UPON VETOES, THE REASONS FOR DISAPPROVAL, AND
NUMBER OF LAWS ENACTED, 1870-1915.
Governor
Assembly
Laws
enacted
Vetoes
Time of
Veto
Action on
veto
Reasons
for veto
Number
3
K
3
c/i
During
session
ta
§J"
<"rt
•o
jj
0! V
rt >
PH 0
Amended
Dropped
s.
o
CJ
o
I
Appr'ns.
Defective
Palmer ....
1870-72
241
II
8
3
4
7
I
O
IO
6
5
0
Beveridge.
1872-74
149
5
3
2
3
2
O
O
5
4
o
1
1874-76
89
i
i
O
o
I
O
o
i
I
o
+_> Tf
0
Cullom ....
1876-78
163
5
5
O
2
3
0
o
5
4
0
I ~
1
1878-80
203
4
2
2
I
3
o
0
4
0
3
Ijjg
1
1880-82
130
o
O
O
0
o
0
o
o
0
0
<U CX
H£
0
Hamilton
1882-84
"5
3
2
I
2
i
o
0
3
2
I
<^
0
Oglesby ..
1884-86
114
o
O
O
0
o
0
o
o
0
o
o
0
1886-88
199
2
I
I
2
o
0
0
2
I
I
o
0
Fifer
1888-90
166
c
"3.
2
I
A
o
o
c
2
2
o
I
1890-92
164
*J
2
O
2
O
O
*T
2
o
o
o
2
O
2
o
0
Altgeld ....
1892-94
in
12
2
10
I
II
o
,p
12
I
10
o
i
1894-96
182
II
4
7
5
6
I
0
IO
I
IO
o
0
Tanner ....
1896-98
192
3
i
2
o
3
o
o
3
I
2
o
0
1898-00
176
4
2
2
o
4
o
0
4
2
O
I
I
Yates
I900-O2
179
8
4
4
o
8
o
o
8
0
6
0
2
1902-04
209
30
15
15
o
30
o
0
30
5
20
4
I
Deneen ....
1904-06
217
28
18
IO
o
28
0
o
28
4
14
5
5
1906-08
279
33
18
15
5
28
o
I
32
II
12
6
4
I908-IO
239
44
29
15
3
4i
0
o
44
27
9
o
8
I9IO-I2
274
23
13
IO
i
122
0
0
23
9
9
0
5
Dunne
1912-14
218
30
19
ii
2
228
o
o
30
7
14
6
3
1914-16
293
33
21
12
O
333
o
o
33
i
18
IO
4
Totals ||4302||297|i73|i24|| 32] 265) | 2] i|294||89|i38| 32 (38
aOf these five were vetoed during the recess from May 19 to May
31, 1911. S. J., pp. 1635 ff.; H. J., pp. 1495 ff.
2Of these twenty-seven were made during the recess from June 20 to
June 30, 1913. S. J., pp. 2290-2298; H. /., pp. 2156-2167.
3Of these thirty were made during the recess from June 19 to June
30, 1915. S. J., pp. 1671 ff. ; H. /., pp. 1381 ff.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARIES .AND CONCLUSIONS
The Veto Power Under the Three Constitutions. — The veto
power in Illinois has passed through three stages. Under the
constitution of 1818 the governor and the judges of the supreme
court were constituted a council of revision. A bill passed by
the general assembly was required to be laid before the council
for revisal and consideration where a majority could approve
or disapprove it. If disapproved the reasons were to be stated
in writing and returned together with the bill to the house in
which it had originated. The houses of the general assembly
were then to reconsider the bill and might repass it by a majority
vote of the total membership elected to each house. The council
was allowed ten days for the consideration of bills. If they were
not returned within the ten-day period, they were to become
effective without approval. If the general assembly by adjourn-
ment should prevent their return within the ten-day period, the
bills disapproved after adjournment were to be returned to the
general assembly at its first meeting after such adjournment or
become law.
The council of revision lasted for thirty years. During that
time the veto power was used extensively and on the whole
effectively. The council disapproved of 104 bills, while 3158
were enacted into law. For the whole period the bills disap-
proved averaged about three and a third per cent as compared
with the number of laws enacted. The percentage fell as low
as one in 1833 and ran as high as eighteen in 1827.
While one hundred and four bills were disapproved only
eleven, or about ten per cent, were passed over the veto. Nor
were any of these bills of any importance. They were rather petty
measures, the repassage of which tended to the discredit of the
general assembly.
The veto messages were constructive. Often the council
would suggest amendments. The result was that in the case of
two-thirds of the bills disapproved amendments were adopted
which proved acceptable to the council of revision.
In the constitution of 1848 the council of revision was abol-
ished. The veto power, otherwise unchanged, was given to the
129
130 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [130
governor alone. It was used sparingly until 1869. Up to that
time, also, only two bills were passed over the veto. The legis-
lative session of 1869 was marked by a crisis in special legisla-
tion. During that session Governor Palmer disapproved seventy-
two bills, seventeen of the most important of which were passed
over the veto.
During this whole period 7510 laws were enacted, by far
the larger number of which were special acts. Exactly one hun-
dred, or one and a third per cent, were disapproved. Of the
hundred bills disapproved nineteen, or almost twenty per cent,
were passed over the veto. On the other hand, only two were
amended. Moreover, the billls passed over the veto were, on the
whole, the most important, and many were extremely objec-
tionable. Among the most important were the following: The
banking act of 1851, the Chicago street railway act of 1865, the
Chicago lake front act of 1869, five acts authorizing unorgan-
ized communities to subscribe to railroad stock — the so-called
"tax grab" acts — discriminating in regard to taxation in favor
of communities that had subscribed to railroad stock. When the
real test came the suspensive veto had been found inadequate.
In the face of the general assembly of 1869 the governor was
unable in many cases to force even a consideration of his veto
messages.
The constitutions of both 1818 and 1848 provided that if any
bill should be disapproved after adjournment the governor should
return the veto to the next session of the general assembly or the
bill was to become law. This provision proved of no importance.
Under the constitution of 1818 three bills were vetoed in this
manner. None were passed over the veto. Only one of the three
was amended. Under the constitution of 1848 ten were returned,
none of which were amended or passed over the veto. This pro-
vision had proved of so little importance that it was not included
in the constitution of 1870.
Under the constitution of 1870 the veto power has been
really effective. The vote required to override the governor's
disapproval was raised to two-thirds of the total membership
of each house of the general assembly. Instead of requiring that
the vetoes made after adjournment should be returned to the
next meeting, they were to be filed in the office of the secretary
of state. A definite time of ten days is allowed for the consider-
ation of bills after adjournment as well as during the session.
Up to 1900 the extent of the use of the veto power was about
the same as under the constitution of 1848. The number of bills
131] SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS 131
disapproved during any session of the general assembly rarely
numbered half a dozen — in only one case did they reach a dozen.
But beginning with Governor Yates a new era of the veto power
was entered upon. Since 1900 the number of bills disapproved
at each general assembly has, more than half of the time, run
as high as thirty or above. At one session it ran as high as forty-
four.
In comparison with the number of laws enacted the present
veto power is equally conspicuous. While three and one-third
per cent of the bills enacted were disapproved under the council
of revision, and one and one-third under the suspensive veto of
1848, seven per cent of the bills enacted between 1870 and 1916
have been disapproved. But if we take the period from 1900 to
1916 the percentage runs as high as twelve out of every hundred.
From the point of view of the effectiveness of the veto
power still more striking facts appear. Under the first consti-
tution one-tenth of the bills disapproved were passed over the
veto. Under the second constitution this number rose to one-
fifth. But under the constitution of 1870 only two laws have
been enacted in spite of the governor's disapproval. It may
almost be said, therefore, that the veto power under the constitu-
tion of 1870 is absolute.
Although it has proved practically impossible to pass a bill
over the disapproval of the governor, no serious abuse of the veto
power has ever occurred. There have doubtless been a number
of cases where one might justly question the wisdom of a partic-
ular veto. But there is no doubt that the governors of Illinois
have, on the whole, exercised the veto power conscientiously, that
they have merited the confidence of the people, and that the
people expect them to exercise independent judgment on meas-
ures presented for their approval. On the other hand, there are
literally scores of instances where the general asembly has be-
trayed the interests of the poeple.
Under the constitutions of 1818 and 1848 the vetoes made
after adjournment had proven few and unimportant. Instead of
requiring vetoes made after adjournment to be returned to the
following session of the general assembly as before, the consti-
tution of 1870 gave the governor ten days to consider bills left
in his hands after adjournment, and provided that the vetoes
made during that time should be filed with the secretary of
state. The ten-day period thus granted has proved wholly inad-
equate. The greater number of bills are now passed within the
132 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [132
last ten days of the session.1 Many of the bills passed late in
the legislative session are of great importance. In spite of the
fact that he makes use of the various state officers and every oth-
er trustworthy source of aid in the consideration of these bills,
the governor is really overloaded. He should have not less than
twenty days after adjournment to consider bills — preferably
thirty, as in New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Iowa, Missouri,
Colorado and California.
In connection with this point it may be noted that whereas
there were very few vetoes made after adjournment under the
two earlier constitutions, the reverse has been true under the
present. The proportion of bills disapproved during the session
of the general assembly has steadily decreased. During the
first twenty-two years, of the period under discussion forty per
cent were disapproved during the session. During the last
twenty-four years, from 1892 to 1916, the proportion fell to six
and one-half per cent. If we take the period since 1900 it is still
lower, namely, four and one-half per cent. In other words, as
the situation is today, for every five vetoes the governor makes
during the session of the general assembly he will make ninety-
five after its adjournment. In each case he has ten days. The
time granted is adequate during the legislative session. But it is
inadequate for the consideration of bills left in the hands of the
governor after adjournment. The task of considering bills pre-
paratory to approval or disapproval is of sufficient importance
to warrant the adoption of a constitutional provision giving the
governor thirty days after the adjournment of the general as-
sembly.
Reasons for Disapproval. — Turning from the veto provisions
of the three different constitutions, the extent of their use, and
their general effectiveness, we may now attempt to summarize the
use of the veto power from 1818 to 1916 on the basis of the rea-
sons assigned for the vetoes. For this purpose the general classi-
fication of the vetoes heretofore used, namely, vetoes on constitu-
tional grounds, vetoes on grounds of policy, and vetoes of defec-
tive bills, will be continued.
Contrary to the older conception of the function of the veto
power, it has rarely been used to protect the executive and judi-
cial departments against encroachments on the part of the
legislature. During the whole period from 1818 to 1916, 155 bills
were disapproved on constitutional grounds. Of these only fif-
teen can be classified as attempted encroachments by the general
Governors' Conference, 1913, Proceedings, p. 271.
133] SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS 133
assembly upon the other two departments.. Eight were encroach-
ments upon the executive department. Most of the cases arising
before 1848 were attempts to interfere with the governor's power
of appointment. In nearly all cases they were attempts to fill
appointive positions by legislative act. Under the constitution
of 1848 there were no vetoes of this class. Since 1870 only three
cases have arisen, all since 1900. Two were attempts to pass
legislation at the special session of 1910 on subjects not included
in the call. The third was an attempt to interfere with the par-
doning power by authorizing judges to pardon in certain cases.
Of seven bills regarded as encroaching upon the judiciary,
only one was passed prior to 1870. It was an attempt to elect
probate judges annually by the general assembly, though the
constitution provided that judges should hold during good be-
havior. Six were passed under the constitution of 1870. Three
were attempts to delegate judicial power to non-judicial officers
or bodies. In one case it was attempted to dissolve certain writs
of injunction by legislative act.
On the other hand, the veto power has been frequently used
to prevent what in the opinion of the governor would have been
unconstitutional use of the legislative power in other respects.
Only a few of the more conspicuous groups of vetoes of this class
will be summarized. Ten cases of conflict with the national con-
stitution and laws were prevented, seven during the period 1818
to 1848, one from 1848 to 1870, and two since 1870. There were
thirteen cases of conflict wTith the bill of rights under the consti-
tution of 1818, and twelve with the bill of rights under the con-
situation of 1870. The cases arising under the constitution of
1818 were mainly attempts to dispose of property by legislative
acts, usually private property, by authorizing heirs or adminis-
trators to act. The twelve cases arising since 1870 were mostly
cases in relation to private property, generally involving the
"due process of law" clause.
Under the constitution of 1848 over thirty vetoes grew out of
the practice of granting public aid to private undertakings.
Some of the bills disapproved favored certain property or com-
munities in regard to taxation. Especially noteworthy are the
so-called "tax grab" acts, which favored communities that had
subscribed to railroad stock at the expense of other communi-
ties which had not done so. Others authorized taxation for
other than public purposes. A large number were disapproved
because they authorized unorganized communities to subscribe to
railroad stock.
134 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [134
Of the large number of vetoes on constitutional grounds
since 1870, besides the twelve cases affecting the bill of rights
already referred to, it is desired to call attention to two large
groups of vetoes both falling under article IV, dealing with the
legislative department of the government. The first class is
composed of twenty-two cases affecting section 13, dealing with
legislative procedure and forms. In one case the requirement
that bills shall be read three times on three separate days in
each house had not been complied with. In another case the bill
dealt writh more than one subject. In three cases there were
attempts to revive or amend laws by reference to title only.
In seventeen cases it was thought that the subject matter of the
bills was not adequately expressed in the title.
Section 22 of article IV of the constitution of 1870 pro-
hibits twenty-three classes of special legislation. Twenty-one
bills have been disapproved because they conflicted with this
section. Three cases were attempts to regulate county and
township affairs by special acts. In one case an attempt was
made to amend a city charter. Twelve bills would have con-
ferred special privileges upon certain corporations, associations,
or individuals. In half a dozen cases bills were vetoed on the
ground that a general act could deal with the subject.
While a large number of bills were disapproved between
1870 and 1916, nevertheless a great deal of unconstitutional leg-
islation was passed. Between 1870 and 1913, 257 acts of the
general assembly were declared unconstitutional by the supreme
court of Illinois.2 Conceding that a large number of the earlier
ones were probably passed before 1870, there would still be a
great number left. It may be expected, however, that a smaller
amount of unconstitutional legislation will be passed in the fu-
ture. It is not uncommon now for members interested in the pas-
sage of certain bills to consult the attorney general as to their
constitutionality before they are introduced or while still in pas-
sage. The recently organized legislative reference bureau may
also be expected to reduce unconstitutional legislation. Finally,
the scrutiny of bills after they have been passed by the general
assembly and before they are approved by the governor is be-
coming more and more rigid. Since 1900 — especially since Gov-
ernor Deneen's second term — it has become customary for the
governor to consult the attorney general as to the constitu-
tionality of bills submitted to him for his approval. At the
2Wright, op. cit., pp. 48-49.
135] SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS 135
present time bills regularly go to the attorney general before
the governor himself takes them up for consideration.
A great deal of defective legislation has been prevented by
the exercise of the veto power, thereby saving the people of the
state considerable inconvenience and expense. During the
whole period under consideration seventy-nine such bills were
returned. Their general characteristics were practically the
same throughout the whole period. Some of the most important
classes will be mentioned. Twenty-seven bills have been classi-
fied as superfluous. Of these a small number were disapproved
because they were considered unnecessary. A large number were
duplicates of other bills passed at the same session of the gen-
eral assembly. The largest number, sixteen, were considered
superfluous because more satisfactory legislation covering the
same subjects had been passed. In twelve cases bills were disap-
proved because they conflicted with existing laws not intended
to be repealed, with other bills passed at the same session of the
general assembly, or carried mutually conflicting provisions.
Over two dozen others carried defects in drafting, such as serious
omissions or ambiguities. It may be expected that the number
of this class of vetoes will be considerably less in the future
with the establishment and development of the legislative refer-
ence bureau.
The use of the veto power to enable the governor to par-
ticipate in the formation of the state policy has been of greater
importance than both of the other two classes combined. Two
hundred and sixty-three, or considerably more than half of the
vetoes since 1818 were of this class. Under the constitution of
1818 there were forty-one policy vetoes. It will suffice to men-
tion the most important classes. In regard to certain quasi-
public franchises the use of the veto power resulted in the adop-
tion of a policy limiting them to a term of twenty years. Five
bills concerning the incorporation of cities and towns were dis-
approved. The council of revision urged that the powers of
cities and towns should be more clearly defined and limited,
that the state should retain general control, and that uniformity
of incorporation should be sought for. In regard to the settle-
ment of estates the council stood for protection of the interests
of heirs and wards against abuse by administrators and execu-
tors. In a veto of a divorce bill they called attention to the in-
expediency of granting divorces by special legislative acts.
Under the constitution of 1848 fifty-three policy vetoes
were made. A number of the most important classes of bills will
136 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [136
be summarized here. The largest single class concerned twenty-
three special incorporation acts. Nine bills proposed to incor-
porate real estate companies. Governors Oglesby and Palmer in
disapproving these bills laid the foundation for a policy that
has persisted to the present day. They urged that the privilege
of incorporation should not be granted unless there were corre-
sponding benefits to the public to be derived from that form of
organization. In regard to real estate business they did not
believe that incorporation was necessary. A number of bills
were objected to because they created monopolies or granted too
extensive powers. Three apportionment bills were disapproved
because they proposed to ' ' gerrymander ' ' the state for party ad-
vantage. It had been the custom to regulate fees of local officers
by special acts. In 1865 eleven such acts had been passed. In
1869 Governor Palmer disapproved six bills of this sort
because they tended to create conflict and confusion. He ex-
pressed the opinion that these matters should be regulated by
general law.
Many of the lines of policy suggested by early vetoes found
adoption in the constitution of 1870. This is especially true of
the prohibitions placed upon the general assembly. A few
which were clearly foreshadowed by the vetoes may be enumer-
erated here :
The State shall never pay, assume or become responsible for the
debts or liabilities of, or in any manner give, loan or extend its credit
to, or in aid of, any public or other corporation, association or individ-
ual. Art. IV, sec. 20.
The general assembly shall not pass local or specal laws in any of
the following enumerated cases, that is to say: granting divorces; . . .
vacating roads, town plats, streets, alleys, and public grounds; ... in-
corporating cities, towns or villages, or changing or amending the charter
of any town, city or village; . . . the sale or mortgage of real estate
belonging to minors or others under disability; . . . chartering or licens-
ing ferries or toll bridges; remitting fines, penalties or forfeitures;
creating, increasing, or decreasing fees, percentage or allowances of public
officers, during the term for which said officers are elected or appointed ;
. . . granting to any corporation, association, or individual, the right to
lay down railroad tracks, or amending existing charters for such pur-
poses ; granting to any corporation, association, or individual any special
or exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatever; . . . Art. IV,
sec. 22.
The general assembly shall have no power to release or discharge
any county, city, township, town or district whatever, or the inhabitants
thereof, or the property therein, from their or its proportionate share
137] SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS 137
of taxes to be levied for state purposes, nor shall commutation for such
taxes be authorized in any form whatsoever. Art. IX, sec. 6.
No corporation shall be created by special laws, or its charter ex-
tended, changed or amended, except those for charitable, educational,
penal or reformatory purposes, which are to be and remain under the
patronage and control of the State, but the general assembly shall pro-
vide, by general laws, for the organization of all corporations hereafter
to be created.. Art. XI, sec. i.
All existing charters or grants of special or exclusive privileges,
under which organization shall not have taken place, or which shall not
have been in operation within ten days from the time this constitution
takes effect, shall thereafter have no validity or effect whatever. Art.
XI, sec. 2.
No law shall be passed by the general assembly granting the right
to construct and operate street railways within any city, town or incor-
porated village, without requiring the consent of the local authorities
having the control of the street or highway proposed to be occupied by
such street railroad. Art. XI, sec. 4.
No county, city, town, township, or other municipality, shall ever
become subscriber to the capital stock of any railroad or private corpo-
ration, or make donation to or loan its credit in aid of such corpora-
tion. . . .
It may be added that a large percentage of the constitu-
tional vetoes made since 1870 have been made to enforce these
prohibitions.
Since 1870, 170 bills have been disapproved on grounds of
policy. Four of the most important classes will be included in
this summary. Three were bills concerning cities and municipal
problems. In one case an act authorizing the dissolution of
cities and towns was disapproved because it did not sufficiently
protect the interests of creditors of the municipality. In two
cases bills concerning the annexation of territory were disap-
proved because they did not give residents and property owners
in the territory proposed to be annexed sufficient voice in the
matter.
Five bills concerning Chicago parks were disapproved.
Three were proposals under the guise of general laws to author-
ize the city authorities to run a street through Humboldt Park.
The governors who vetoed these bills feared that material and
lasting damage might be done to the park. Two bills to grant the
Chicago lake front to the public for park purposes were disap-
proved in order to gain further time for consideration of this
project.
Lake Calumet has also figured prominently in connection
with the veto power. "Within the last six years three bills deal-
138 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [138
ing with the lake have been disapproved. Two were passed to
authorize the city of Chicago to build harbors in the lake. The
last bill, which was passed in 1915, authorized Chicago to reclaim
and dispose of the land. All three vetoes indicate that the best
method of utilizing the lake has not yet been determined upon.
In each case the governor has stood out for a well-matured
project and against any heedless disposal of that valuable prop-
erty.
A large number of bills affecting the administration of jus-
tice have been disapproved. Two bills forbidding the practice
of photographing suspects were disapproved because they would
have seriously hampered the prosecution of criminals. In 1911
a bill concerning change of venue was disapproved because it
unduly extended the right of the accused to demand it. The
parole law and the juvenile court law were protected in 1903
and 1911, respectively, against attempts to destroy them.
The veto of appropriation bills has been closely related to
the growing expenditures of the state. This class of vetoes,
placed on the general grounds of economy, with one exception,
came after 1900. It is composed of two sub-classes, namely, seven-
teen appropriation bills disapproved in full, and thirty-two ap-
propriation bills disapproved in part as authorized by the con-
stitutional amendment of 1884.
During the early years after 1900 the bills disapproved in
full were relatively more important. Later the veto of items
became of great importance. The total amounts vetoed varied,
of course, widely from year to year. The amounts involved were
often very considerable. Thus, for example, in 1903 Governor
Yates vetoed about a million dollars. In 1915 Governor Dunne 's
vetoes totalled something like two million dollars.
With few exceptions, the appropriations disapproved may
be classified under the following heads: Appropriations for
higher educational institutions, the Illinois national guard, agri-
culture (especially for the state fair grounds), public roads, and
the general appropriations for the state government. That the
first two classes of institutions were the first to feel the effect
of the veto power may have no connection with the fact that they
have little political pressure to bring to bear though the question
easily suggests itself. Of late years the state appropriations for
public roads and for the general and contingent expenses of
the state government have come in for heavy reductions.
Although the veto power has been used to a greater and
greater extent to limit the growing increase in expenditures, it
139] SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS 139
has not been sufficient to prevent enormous increases from session
to session. Thus, since 1900, when, this class of vetoes began to
occur, expenditures have grown from $12,773,686.12 in 1901 to
$46,349,326.17 in 1915.
The practice of reducing items for a time showed promise
of giving the governor still larger control over appropriations;
but this was held unconstitutional by the supreme court in De-
cember, 1915. It has been suggested that the constitution ought
to be amended so as to enable him to do so. It would seem, how-
ever, that a much better and safer method would be to give the
governor more influence over the budget in its earlier stages,
especially by some means of control over the estimates submitted
to the general assembly.
It may be permitted in conclusion to raise a question which
is pertinent to the whole discussion of the veto power. The veto
power may be characterized as an eleventh-hour remedy. The
growing frequency of its use points to a lack of harmony and
cooperation between the governor and the legislature. "Would
it not be expedient to provide some constitutional means for intro-
ducing the governor's influence earlier in the process of legisla-
tion ? Something might be accomplished by following the line of
development suggested in Alabama and Virginia — authorizing
the governor to introduce amendments. Or perhaps the solution
lies in the adoption of some form of cabinet system for the state.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. SECONDARY MATERIAL
Barnett, James D., "The Executive Control of the Legislature", Am. Law
Review, Vol. XLI, pp. 215-238, 384-406.
Beard, Charles A., American Government and Politics. New York, 1910.
Davidson, Alexander and Stuve, Bernard, History of Illinois. Spring-
field, 111., 1884.
Dicey A. V., Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution.
London, 1908.
Dickerson, O. M., The Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1862, in Uni-
versity of Illinois Studies, Vol. I, No. 9.
Dillon, John F., Commentaries on the Law of Municipal Corporations.
4th ed. Boston, 1911.
Dowrie, George W., The Development of Banking in Illinois 1817-1863,
in University of Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, Vol. II, No. 4.
Fairlie, John A., "The State Governor", Michigan Law Review, Vol. X,
pp. 1-32.
Fairlie, John A., "The Street Railway Question in Chicago", Q. J. E.,
Vol. XXI, pp. 37I-403-
Farrand, Max, Legislation of Congress for the Government of the Organ-
ized Territories of the United States. Newark, 1896.
Federalist, University Edition. New York, 1867.
Fernholz, John J., The Appointive and Removal Power of the Governor
of Illinois. Unpublished thesis.
Gardner, C. O., "The Working of the State-Wide Referendum in Illi-1
nois", American Political Science Review, Vol. V, pp. 394-415. \
Garner, James Wilford, Introduction to Political Science. New York,'
1910.
Greene, E. B., The Provincial Governor, in Harvard Historical Studies,
Vol. VIII. New York, 1898.
Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, Molesworth Ed.
Ilbert, Sir Courtenay, Parliament; its History, Constitution and Practice.
New York, 1911.
Lincoln, Charles Z., Constitutional History of New York, 5 vols. New
York, 1906.
Long, Theodore K, Lake Shore Reclamation Commission Report. Chi-
cago, 1912.
Lowell, A. L., The Government of England. 2 vols. New York, 1908.
Maitland, F. W., Constitutional History of England. Cambridge, 1909.
Mason, Edward C., The Veto Power. Boston, 1890.
140
141] BIBLIOGRAPHY 141
Reinsch, Paul S., American Legislatures and Legislative Methods. New
York, 1907.
Thompson, M. W., Municipal Government in Illinois before 1840. Un-
published thesis.
Wright, A. B., Judicial Control over Legislation in Illinois. Unpub-
lished thesis.
II. SOURCE MATERIAL
A. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.
Journal of the Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1818. Reprinted
in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, Vol. VI,
pp. 327 ff. Edited by Richard V. Carpenter.
Journal of the Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1847.
Illinois State Register, 1847, Nos. 1-36. This paper contains the rej
ports of the debates of the convention.
Journal of the Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1862.
Journal of the Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1869-1870.
Debates and Proceedings of the Illinois Constitutional Convention of
1869-1870, 2 vols.
Proceedings and Debates, New York Constitutional Convention, 1821.
Thorpe, Francis Newton, The Federal and State Constitutions etc.
7 vols. Washington, 1909.
Kurd, Harvey B., Revised Statutes of Illinois, 1913. Chicago, 1914.
Wyman, Arthur C. and Sherwood, Grace M., The Veto Power in
the Several States. Providence, 1907.
White, Thomas R., Commentaries on the Constitution of Pennsyl-
vania. Philadelphia, 1007.
Index Digest of State Constitutions, prepared for the New York
Constitutional Convention of 1915.
Newman, J. H., Digest of State Constitutions. Columbus, 1912. Pre-
pared for the Ohio Constitutional Convention of 1912.
B. MATERIAL ON THE USE OF THE VETO POWER.
Laws of Illinois, 1818-1915.
House Journals, 1818-1915.
Senate Journals, 1818-1915.
Up to 1870 all veto messages were required to be printed in one
or the other of the journals.
Executive Documents, 1870-1915, filed in the archives of the secre-
tary of state, Springfield. Since 1870, all vetoes made after the
adjournment of the general assembly have been filed with the
secretary of state.
Ford, Thomas, History of Illinois. Chicago, 1854.
Palmer, John M., Personal Recollections. Cincinnati, 1901.
Reynolds, John M., My Own Times. Belleville, 111., 1855.
Governors' Conference, Proceedings, 1911.
142 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO IN ILLINOIS [142
Governors' Conference, Proceedings, 1913.
Chicago Tribune, 1870-1884.
Illinois Blue Book, 1913-1914.
Efficiency and Economy Committee, Report. 1915.
C. CASES.
Blair v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 400.
Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, u Pet. 257.
City of Chicago v. Gunning System, 214 ///. 628.
Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540.
Darrington v. Bank of Alabama, 13 How. 12.
Fergus v. Russel, 270 ///. 304.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150.
Linn v. President and Directors of the State Bank of Illinois, 2
///. 87.
Lynch v. Malley, 215 ///. 574.
Owners of Lands v. People, 113 ///. 296.
People v. Brown et al., 67 ///. 435.
People v. Butler Street Foundry, 201 ///. 266.
People v. Election Commissioners, 221 ///. 9.
People ex rel. v. Forest Cemetery Company et al., 258 ///. 36.
People ex rel. v. Hatch, 19 ///. 282.
People v. Hatch, 33 ///. 9.
People ex rel. v. Lippincott, 65 ///. 548.
People v. McCulloch, 210 ///. 488.
People v. Pfanschmidt, 262 ///. 411.
Quincy M. & P. R. Co. v. Morris, 84 ///. 410.
Ramsey v. Hoeger, 76 ///. 432.
Sign Works v. Training School, 249 ///. 436.
Supreme Lodge v. Board of Review, 223 ///. 54.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11