An argument for repassage by majority vote. be most likely to stand impartial. The possession of power makes one conservative. The instances are numerous in which men comparatively of no character have been placed in important positions, men who were radical in their opinions, and the moment they have accepted a position of responsibility and power, they have become conservative in their actions. The Governor of Kentucky is the representative of the entire State. He represents every party in the State. He represents not singly the Democratic party or the Republican party, or any other party; but he stands there as the representative of all; and if in a time of public heat and party passion persons composing the General Assembly should be tempted to do something which they would not in calmer moments, it seems to me that the Governor, more than any one else, would be likely to repress the inclination to do wrong by the proper exercise of his veto power. MR. BECKNER. If the gentleman's amendment prevails, the Governor may say that no bill shall be passed until two-thirds of the members of both Houses elected shall have voted for it, which would be a destruction of the majority rule, and would be the most serious innovation upon our system of Government that could be made. The veto power is given simply for the purpose of calling the attention of the Legislature to inadvertences; to mistakes or to errors it may commit through want of proper consideration, and not to give the Governor more power than the General Assembly has, or, in other words, the people, through their representatives, have. It is conferred in order that someone who has a cool head, who reads carefully what they do, may calmly consider and call their attention to an error in the bill they may have passed; and the representatives of the people have almost always responded by refusing to pass a bill where a mistake had been made. If the Governor, however, should be mistaken in his view, there are one hundred and thirty-eight representatives of the people who sit in this hall, and in the hall across the way, who will correct this mistake, and pass the bill, as they ought to have the right to do; and I cannot imagine any greater mistake that we could make than to say that the people shall not rule through a majority of their representatives. This passage from a veto message of Governor Black of New York illustrates the exercise of the important power of vetoing items in the general appropriation bill: tion for cancer in Eleventh "For the faculty of the medical department of the Appropriauniversity of Buffalo, for the equipment and maintenance of a laboratory to be devoted to an investigation into the causes, na- vestigation. ture, mortality, rate and treatment of cancer; and the salaries of officials of the same, ten thousand dollars; same to be paid upon vouchers officially signed by the director of said laboratory, or, in his absence, by the secretary and treasurer of the faculty." I cannot approve a proposed policy which requires the State to engage in the investigation of the causes of various diseases with which the human family is afflicted. I think that the interest of the people themselves and the skill, intelligence and enterprise of the physicians may be depended upon to make such investigation. 176. The Call of an Extraordinary Session The following document shows how the governor of New York may call an extra session of the legislature and urge upon it the consideration of some special questions: State of New York, Executive Chamber. ALBANY, May 22, 1899. TO THE LEGISLATURE: "At present the farmers, the market gardeners and the mechanics and tradesmen having small holdings, are paying an improper and excessive portion of the general taxes, while at the same time many of the efforts to remedy this state of affairs, notably in the direction of taxing securities, are not only unwise, but inefficient, and often serve merely to put a premium upon dishonesty. . . . Message to the legislature in extra session. Recom mendations to the legislature. Statement of the reasons for pardon. "It yet remains true that a corporation which derives its powers from the State, should pay to the State a just percentage of its earnings as a return for the privileges it enjoys. This should be especially true for the franchises bestowed upon gas companies, street railroads and the like. The question of the municipal ownership of these franchises cannot be raised with propriety until the governments of all municipalities show greater wisdom and virtue than has been recently shown, for instance, in New York City; and the question of laying and assessing the tax for franchises of every kind throughout the State should in my opinion be determined by the State itself. I need not point out to you that in foreign communities a very large percentage of the taxes comes from corporations which use the public domain for pipes, tracks and the like." ... Accordingly I recommend the enactment of a law which shall tax all these franchises as realty, which shall provide for the assessment of the tax by the Board of State Tax Commissioners and which shall further provide that from the tax thus levied for the benefit of each locality there shall be deducted the tax now paid by the corporation in question to the locality. Furthermore, as the time for assessing the largest and wealthiest corporations, those of New York and Buffalo, has passed for this year, and as it will be preferable not to have the small country corporations taxed before the larger corporations of the cities are taxed, I suggest that the operation of the law be deferred until October first, of this year. THEODORE ROOSEVELT. 177. An Exercise of the Pardoning Power The way in which a governor may use his pardoning power to mitigate the rigors of the law is illustrated by the following paper issued by Mr. Roosevelt as governor of New York in 1900. July 27, 1900. Edward Wise. Sentenced March 31, 1899, to be executed; county, New York; crime, murder, first degree; prison, Sing Sing. Commuted to imprisonment for life. Wise was convicted of murder in the first degree for causing the death of Charles F. Beasley while attempting to rob him on one of the public streets of the city of New York. The evidence given upon the trial together with additional evidence adduced upon the application for clemency shows that the crime was committed by Wise in company with a confederate named Sweeney. There was no thought of killing Beasley or of doing him bodily harm, but, while they were engaged in the attempt to rob him, Sweeney struck him a blow which felled him to the ground, and his head coming violently against the pavement his skull was fractured, resulting in his death. Wise was taken into custody at once, but Sweeney escaped. Legally Wise was no doubt as fully responsible for Sweeney's act in striking Beasley and for the consequences of it as if he had himself delivered the blow, although in fact he in no way consented to it, and had not contemplated anything of the kind. And although the killing of Beasley was altogether unintentional and occurring as it did quite in the nature of an accident, still those by whose act it was brought about were, under the statute, guilty of murder in the first degree, being at the time engaged in the commission of a felony. But in view of all the circumstances, death, the only penalty prescribed by law for the offense, seems too stern and severe, and some mitigation is due by way of executive clemency. Imprisonment for life will be fully commensurate with Wise's guilt and sufficient for all the demands of justice. 178. Martial Law Whenever the governor of a state, in the exercise of the power bestowed upon him by the constitution, establishes martial law, he usually issues a proclamation in the following tenor: December 4, 1903. Whereas, said destruction of property with attendant loss of life by mob violence, as above set forth, is but a repetition of outrages covering a long period of time just past in said county, during which time citizens have lost their lives without the offenders being apprehended or punished therefor; and Reasons for declaring martial law. Civil and criminal law subject to military necessity. Martial law extends to property and persons. Whereas the civil authorities have shown themselves either unable to deal with these criminals and bring them to punishment or else are unwilling to perform their duty, by reason of threats and intimidations, or through fear or subserviency to such body of lawless and armed men, so that a state of lawlessness exists in said county of Teller, the laws are set at defiance, and the citizens are unable to enjoy the rights guaranteed them by the constitution and laws of this State, and by reason of these conditions it appears that life and property are unsafe in said county; and Whereas, I have reason to believe that similar outrages may occur at any time, and believing the civil authorities of said county of Teller are utterly unable, unwilling and are making no practical attempt to preserve order and to protect life and property: Now, therefore, I, James H. Peabody, governor of the State of Colorado, by virtue of the authority in me vested, do hereby proclaim and declare the said county of Teller, in the State of Colorado, to be in a state of insurrection and rebellion. The implications of martial law are thus indicated by the instructions furnished to the troops by General Sherman Bell acting under the above proclamation: The county of Teller, in consequence of the occupation by the militia, is subject to the supreme military authority and control when necessity requires and occasion demands, and it becomes necessary to suspend, in part or in its entirety, by the occupying military authority, the criminal and civil law and the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and to substitute military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution or dictation. The militia may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authorities. As martial law is executed by military force it is incumbent upon those who administer it to be strictly guided by the principles of |