128 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



Glossbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Haight.Richard D. 

 Hubbard, Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Knott, 

 Mallory, Marshall, Morgan, Mungen, Niblack, 

 Nicholson, Phelps, Pruyn, Kandall, Kobinson.Koss, 

 Sitgreaves, Taber, Van Auken, Van Trump, Wood, 

 and Woodward 38. 



NOT VOTING Messrs. Anderson, Deles K. Ash- 

 ley, Barnuin, Blair, Cake, Gary, Sidney Clarke, Cor- 

 nell Covode, Finney, Fox, Gravelly, Griswold, Hill, 

 Higby, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Kitchen, 

 George V. Lawrence, Loan, Marvin. McCarthy, Mc- 

 Cullough, Miller, Moore, Morrell, Morrissey, Pile, 

 Pomeroy, Raum, Scofield, Selye. Shellabarger, Spald- 

 infif, Stone, Taffe, Tavlor, Twichell, Burt Van Horn, 

 Van Wyck, Ward. Elihu B. Washburne, Stephen F. 

 Wilson, and Wooabridge i4. 



In the Senate, on January 8th, Mr. Edmunds, 

 of Vermont, offered the following resolution : 



Whereas Senate bill No. 141, entitled " An act for 

 the further security of equal rights in the District of 

 Columbia," having at this present session passed 

 both Houses of Congress, was afterward, on the llth 

 day of December, 1867, duly presented to the Presi- 

 dent of the United States for his approval and signa- 

 ture ; and whereas more than ten days, exclusive of 

 Sundays, have since elapsed in this session without 

 said bill having been returned either approved or 

 disapproved : Therefore, 



Resolved, That the President of the United States 

 be requested to inform the Senate whether said bill 

 has been delivered to and received by the Secretary 

 of State as provided by the second section of the act 

 of the 2Tth day of July, 1789. 



The resolution was considered by unanimous 

 consent, and agreed to. 



On January 23d, the President sent the fol- 

 lowing message to the Senate: 

 To the Senate of the United States : 



I have received the following preamble and resolu- 

 tion, adopted by the Senate on the 8th instant : 



As the act which the resolution mentions has no 

 relevancy to the subject under inquiry, it is presumed 

 that it was the intention of the Senate to refer to the 

 law of the 15th September, 1789, the second section 

 of which prescribes 



That whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote of the 

 Senate and House of Representatives, having been ap- 

 proved and signed by the President of the United States, 

 or not having been returned by him with his objections, 

 shall become a law or take effect, it shall forthwith there- 

 after be received by the said Secretary from the President ; 

 and whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote shall be 

 returned by the President, with his objections, and shall, 

 on being reconsidered, be agreed to, be passed, and be 

 approved by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and 

 thereby become a law or take effect, it shall, in such case, 

 be received by the said Secretary from the President of 

 the Senate 6r the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

 in whichsoever House it shall last have been so approved. 



Inasmuch as the bill " for the further securi- 

 ty of equal rights in the District of Columbia " has 

 not become a law in either of the modes designated 

 in the section above quoted, it has not been delivered 

 to the Secretary of State for record and promulgation. 

 The Constitution expressly declares that "if any bill 

 shall not be returned by the President within ten 

 days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been pre- 

 sented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner * 

 as if he has signed it, unless the Congress by their 

 adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall 

 not be a law." As stated in the preamble to the 

 resolution, the bill to which it refers was presented 

 for my approval on the llth day of December, 1867. 

 On the 20th of the same month, and before the expi- 

 ration of the ten days after the presentation of the 

 bill to the President, the two Houses, in accordance 

 with a concurrent resolution adopted on the 3d of 

 December, adjourned until the 6th of January, 1868. 

 Congress by their adjournment thus prevented the 



return of the bill within the time prescribed by the 

 Constitution, and it was therefore left in the precise 

 condition in which that instrument positively delates 

 a bill " shall not be a law." 



If the adjournment in December did not cause the 

 failure of this bill because not such an adjournment 

 as is contemplated by the Constitution in the clause 

 which I have cited, it must follow that such was the 

 nature of the adjournments during the past year, on 

 the 30th day of March until the first Wednesday in 

 July, and from the 20th of July until the 21st of 

 November^ ^ Other _ bills will, therefore, be affected 

 by the decision which may be rendered in this case, 

 among them one having the same title as that named 

 in the resolution, and containing similar provisions, 

 which, passed by both Houses in the month of July 

 last, failed to become a law by reason of the adjourn- 

 ment of Congress before ten days for its consideration 

 had been allowed the Executive. 



ANDEEW JOHNSON. 



WASHINGTON, January 23, 1868. 



Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, said: "I move 

 that that communication be referred to the 

 Committee on the Judiciary, and on its refer- 

 ence I have simply a word to say. It is per- 

 fectly manifest to me, from an examination 

 that I have made of the subject since the reso- 

 lution calling for that information was intro- 

 duced, that the construction which the Presi- 

 dent puts upon the Constitution is altogether 

 wrong, and that the transaction of public busi- 

 ness would be vastly impeded if Congress were 

 to acquiesce in such a construction ; and I hope 

 that we shall be able to adopt some measures 

 which will put all the departments of the Gov- 

 ernment upon a common understanding upon 

 that subject. Of course, this is in no sense a 

 party question. Although it happens to arise 

 now upon a bill which passed upon a division 

 of parties, after all, the question has no politi- 

 cal idea involved in it whatever ; and I shall 

 hope, therefore, when the matter comes to be 

 considered in committee and reported upon, 

 that we may consider it in a spirit which has 

 no connection with and no incitement from 

 the fact that this particular bill happens to be 

 the subject of a difference of opinion. The 

 same question exactly arose in the State of New 

 Hampshire in 1863, under a constitution which, 

 like most of our constitutions, contains the 

 same provision, as was stated the other day by 

 the honorable Senator from Maryland. I have 

 examined the opinion in that case. It was an 

 opinion pronounced by the court at the request 

 of the Legislature of that State, under a pro- 

 vision of their constitution and laws for ob- 

 taining such opinions. The subject is carefully 

 and elaborately discussed, evidently without 

 any feeling about it, and I think any gentleman 

 who will read that opinion, to be found in the 

 forty-fifth volume, I think, of New-Hampshire 

 Reports, cannot fail to be satisfied that this 

 construction of the Constitution now held by 

 the Executive is altogether erroneous, and 

 would in practice lead to very serious incon- 

 veniences." 



Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, said: "I am in- 

 clined to concur with the honorable member 

 from Vermont. It is a question that I have 



