[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 4]
[Chapter 92 - Approval of Bills by the President]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
APPROVAL OF BILLS BY THE PRESIDENT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Provision of the Constitution. Section 3482.
2. As to resolutions requiring approval. Sections 3483, 3484.
3. Bills approved are deposited with the Secretary of State.
Section 3485.
4. Delay in presenting bills to President. Sections 3486-
3488.\1\
5. Practice of the President in approving. Sections 3489-3492.
6. Approval after adjournment for a recess. Sections 3493-
3496.
7. Exceptional instance of approval after final adjournment.
Section 3497.
8. Error in approval. Section 3498.
9. Notification of the Houses as to approvals. Sections 3499-
3504.
10. Return of bills by President for correction of errors.
Sections 3505-3519.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3482. Every bill which has passed the two Houses is presented to the
President for his signature if he approve.
In general, orders, resolutions, and votes in which the concurrence
of the two Houses is necessary must be presented to the President on
the same condition as bills.
A concurrent resolution providing for final adjournment of the two
Houses is not presented to the President for approval.
The Constitution of the United States, in section 7 of Article I,
provides:
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and
the Senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President
of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it, etc.
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the
Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a
question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the
United States, and before the same shall take effect shall be approved
by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds
of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and
limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
3483. Although the requirement of the Constitution seems specific,
the practice of Congress has been to present to the President for
approval only such concurrent resolutions as are legislative in
effect.--On January 27, 1897, Mr. David B. Hill, of New York, from the
Committee on the Judiciary, submitted to the Senate a report \2\ which
that committee had been directed to make on the subject of joint and
concurrent resolutions and their approval by the President. The subject
involved the construction of a portion of section 7 of Article I of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Method of taking enrolled bills to the President. Section 2601 of
Volume III.
\2\ Senate Report No. 1335, second session Fifty-fourth Congress.
Sec. 3483
Constitution.\1\ The committee found that in the first twelve
Congresses there were one or two instances of simple resolutions \2\
being approved by the President; and that, with one or two exceptions,
all joint resolutions were approved.\3\ These exceptions were in cases
where Congress made requests or recommendations not involving any
legislative act. In the first fifty years of the Government the whole
number of joint resolutions did not exceed 200, but they gradually
increased thereafter, until in the Forty-first Congress alone the
number exceeded 500. The joint resolutions have been largely used
since, but not to the extent reached in that Congress. Except in the
few instances in the early Congresses, all joint resolutions have been
presented to the President and have been acted on by him.
The committee found that the passage of concurrent resolutions began
immediately upon the organization of the Government,\4\ but their use
has been, not for the purpose of enacting legislation, but to express
the sense of Congress upon a given subject, to adjourn longer than
three days, to make, amend, or suspend joint rules, and to accomplish
similar purposes, in which both Houses have a common interest, but with
which the President has no concern.
The report continues:
They are frequently used in ordering the printing of documents, in
paying therefor, and in incurring and paying other expenses where the
moneys necessary therefor have previously been appropriated and set
apart by law for the uses of the two Houses.
Concurrent resolutions from their very nature require the concurrence
of both Houses to make them effectual, and if the Constitution in
section 7, before quoted, has reference solely to the form, and not to
the substance of such resolutions, they must of course be presented to
the President for his approval.
For over a hundred years, however, they have never been presented.
They have uniformly been regarded by all the Departments of the
Government as matters peculiarly within the province of Congress alone.
They have never embraced legislative provisions proper, and hence have
never been deemed to require Executive approval.
This practical construction of the Constitution, thus acquiesced in
for a century, must be deemed the true construction, with which no
court will interfere (Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299). If it be
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 3482.
\2\ See 1 Stat. L., p. 96.
\3\ The early usage is illustrated by reference to the laws.
I15Resolutions joint in form, requesting the President to recommend a
day of public humiliation and prayer, were not approved by the
President. (2 Stat. L., p. 786.)
In the Eleventh Congress a joint resolution proposing amendment to
Constitution was not signed by the President. (2 Stat. L., p. 613.) Nor
one in the Third Congress. (1 Stat. L., p. 402.)
The joint resolution of the Eleventh Congress condemning the conduct
of the British minister and pledging Congress to support the Executive
and call into action the whole force of the nation to maintain the
rights and honor of the country was approved by the President.
A joint resolution of the Ninth Congress requesting the President to
express the recognition of Congress to the Danish consul at Tripoli for
attentions to American sailors in captivity was approved by the
President. (2 Stat. L., p. 410.)
Also joint resolution of the First Congress expressing recognition of
Congress to National Assembly of France of tribute to Franklin, and
requesting President to transmit, was approved. (1 Stat. L., p. 225.)
\4\ These early concurrent resolutions were called joint resolutions
often, and received the readings of a bill. Thus, see the case of the
resolution condemning the conduct of the British minister in 1809, and
pledging the support of Congress to the Executive. (First session
Eleventh Congress, Annals, pp. 481, 747, 1151.) On the other hand,
matters of procedure of the two Houses, like arrangements for the
electoral count, were provided by the adoption of simple resolutions in
each House, sometimes not identical in form.
Sec. 3484
contended that the exception in section 7 (whereby adjournment
resolutions are excluded from those which must be presented to the
President, although they require the concurrence of both Houses)
somewhat corroborates the theory that all other concurrent resolutions
are intended to be included, regardless of their character, it may be
answered that such exception was rendered necessary because of that
other provision of the Constitution (Article I, section 5, subdivision
4) which prevents adjournments for more than three days without the
consent of each House. Such adjournment resolutions were therefore
constitutionally required to be concurrent because the ``concurrence''
of both Houses was under the Constitution itself necessary thereto to
make them valid, and if there had been no exception contained in said
section 7 all such resolutions would have been required to be presented
to the President, which would be an unprofitable and useless
proceeding, as Congress itself should have the sole right to determine
the question of its own adjournment, the President being sufficiently
protected in such matters by his power to convene Congress whenever he
deems it desirable.
In other words, the exception was necessary in order to take certain
adjournment resolutions out of the category of those ``to which the
concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be
necessary,'' under the other provisions of the Constitution, and for
that good reason all adjournment resolutions were appropriately
excepted.
After referring to Revised Statutes (second edition, 1878), sections
7, 8, and 205, and the printing law (chapter 23, laws of 1895, section
59) for evidences of the views taken by legislators of the subject, the
committee came to the following conclusions:
It should also be stated that it has been the uniform practice of
Congress, since the organization of the Government, not to present
concurrent resolutions to the President for his approval, and to avoid
incorporating in such resolutions any matter of strict legislation
requiring such presentation. As a matter of propriety and expediency it
is believed to be wise to continue that course in the future.
We conclude this branch of the subject by deciding the general
question submitted to us, to wit, ``whether concurrent resolutions are
required to be submitted to the President of the United States,'' must
depend, not upon their mere form, but upon the fact whether they
contain matter which is properly to be regarded as legislative in its
character and effect. If they do, they must be presented for his
approval; otherwise, they need not be. In other words, we hold that the
clause in the Constitution which declares that every order, resolution,
or vote must be presented to the President, to ``which the concurrence
of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary,'' refers
to the necessity occasioned by the requirement of the other provisions
of the Constitution, whereby every exercise of ``legislative powers''
involves the concurrence of the two Houses; and every resolution not so
requiring such concurrent action, to wit, not involving the exercise of
legislative powers, need not be presented to the President. In brief,
the nature or substance of the resolution, and not its form, controls
the question of its disposition.
3484. The question as to whether or not concurrent resolutions should
be sent to the President for his signature.--On November 24, 1903,\1\
in the Senate, the President pro tempore,\2\ referring to a question
which had arisen on the previous day, said:
The Chair desires to call the attention of the Senate to a matter
which came up in the Senate on yesterday. A concurrent resolution was
under consideration and passed. The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Teller]
asked the Chair if it went to the President and required his signature.
The Chair replied, No. The Chair finds this article in the Constitution
of the United States:
``Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the
Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a
question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the
United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved
by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds
of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and
limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 438.
\2\ William P. Frye, of Maine, President pro tempore.
Sec. 3485
Within the experience of the Chair in the Senate no concurrent
resolution has ever been sent to the President of the United States,
nor has he ever signed one. The Chair has endeavored faithfully to find
out how concurrent resolutions escape the provision of the
Constitution. He has not been able to succeed.
This led to debate in the course of which the report of the Judiciary
Committee in a former Congress was quoted with approval.\1\
3485. A statute requires that bills signed by the President shall be
received by the Secretary of State from the President.
When a bill returned without the President's approval is passed by
the two Houses, the Secretary of State receives the bill from the
presiding officer of the House in which it last was passed.
The act approved December 28, 1874,\2\ provides:
Whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote of the Senate and House
of Representatives, having been approved by the President, or not
having been returned by him with his objections, becomes a law or takes
effect, it shall forthwith be received by the Secretary of State from
the President; and whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote is
returned by the President with his objections, and on being
reconsidered is agreed to be passed and is approved by two-thirds of
both Houses of Congress, and thereby becomes a law or takes effect, it
shall be received by the Secretary of State from the President of the
Senate or Speaker of the House of Representatives, in whichsoever House
it shall last have been so approved, and he shall carefully preserve
the originals.
3486. Instance wherein a bill enrolled and signed by the presiding
officers of the two Houses of one session was sent to the President and
approved at the next session.--On December 8,1904,\3\ Mr. Frank C.
Wachter, of Maryland, chairman of the Committee on Enrolled Bills,
offered the following:
Whereas the bill (H. R. 10516) for the relief of Edward J. Farrell
passed both Houses at the second session of this Congress, but was
enrolled too late to receive the signatures of the presiding officers
of the two Houses and be presented to the President of the United
States before the adjournment of the said second session; and
Whereas the bill (H. R. 11444) to grant certain lands to the State of
Ohio passed both Houses and was signed by the presiding officers
thereof, but failed to be presented to the President of the United
States before the adjournment of the said second session: Therefore,
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That the said bills be, and are hereby, ordered to be reenrolled for
the signatures of the presiding officers of the two Houses and for
presentation to the President of the United States.
The resolution was agreed to by the House.
On December 12,\4\ in the Senate, the resolution was referred to the
Committee on Rules and was not reported therefrom.
The Senate having taken no action on the resolution, the bill (H. R.
10516) was reenrolled as of the third session, signed by the presiding
officers, and transmitted to the President, who signed it.\5\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 3483 of this chapter.
\2\ 18 Stat. L., p. 294. A law on this subject had existed from 1789
and had been amended in 1838. (See sec. 204 of Revised Statutes.)
\3\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 66.
\4\ Record, p. 125.
\5\ See history of bill (H. R. 10516) in indexes of Journal and
Record.
Sec. 3487
The bill (H. R. 11444) relating to Ohio lands, was transmitted to the
President without reenrollment, appearing as a bill of the second
session.\1\ After receiving an opinion from the Attorney-General the
President signed the bill.\2\
3487. Enrolled bills pending at the close of a session were at the
next session of the same Congress ordered to be treated as if no
adjournment had taken place.--On August 21, 1856,\3\ Mr. James Pike, of
New Hampshire, by unanimous consent, presented the following
resolution:
Resolved (the Senate concurring), That such bills as passed both
Houses at the last session and for want of time were either not
presented to the two Houses for the signatures of their presiding
officers, or, having been thus signed were not presented to the
President for approval, be now reported or presented to the President
as if no adjournment had taken place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chairman of the Committee on Enrolled Bills took this action
after he had considered the following precedents furnished to him by
Mr. William Tyler Page, for many years clerk of the Committee on
Accounts:
``Touching the matter of the right of the chairman of the Committee
on Enrolled Bills to present to the President of the United States a
bill passed at the last session of Congress too late to be presented to
the President before adjournment, I beg to state that I have had my
memory as to a precedent for such action confirmed by the Journals of
the Fiftieth Congress. In the first session of that Congress there were
passed by both Houses of Congress bills of the following numbers and
titles, to wit:
``H. R. 11139, an act to authorize the building of a bridge or
bridges across the Mississippi River at La Crosse, Wis.
``H. R. 11262, an act to authorize the construction of bridges across
the Kentucky River and its tributaries, by the Richmond, Irvine and
Beattyville Railroad Company.
``H. R. 1152, an act for the relief of the legal representatives of
Eliza M. Ferris.
``These several acts, as stated, were passed by both Houses and, on
October 17, 1888, first session Fiftieth Congress, page 2932 of the
Journal of the House, they were reported by the chairman of the
Committee on Enrolled Bills as having been examined by said committee
and found duly enrolled, whereupon, said bills were signed by the
Speaker of the House.
``These acts were not presented to the President of the United States
until the succeeding session of Congress, when, on December 7, 1888,
there appears this entry in the Journal:
`` `Mr. Kilgore, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that
he did on yesterday present to the President of the United States bills
of the House numbered H. R. 11262, H. R. 11139, H. R. 1152.' (House
Journal, p. 57, second session Fiftieth Congress.)
``In the Journal of the same session, on page 115, there appears the
following entry:
`` `A message in writing was received from the President of the
United States * * * informing the House that he did at the dates named
approve bills of the House of the following titles, namely:
`` `On the 10th, H. R. 11139, an act to authorize the building of a
bridge or bridges across the Mississippi River at LaCrosse, Wis.
`` `H. R. 11262, an act to authorize the construction of bridge or
bridges across the Kentucky River and its tributaries, by the Richmond,
Irvine and Beattyville Railroad Company.
`` `H. R. 1152, an act for the relief of the legal representatives of
Eliza M. Ferris.' ''
\2\ See history of bill (H. R. 11444) in the indexes.
\3\ Second session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 1352; Globe,
p. 4.
In this case Congress was immediately convened to pass an army
appropriation bill, which had failed at the regular session. Several
bills were left enrolled but not signed at the adjournment. At that
time a joint rule presented the resumption of business from a former
session immediately.
Formerly the joint rules provided that no bill from one House should
be sent for concurrence to the other on either of the last three days
of the session, and also that no bill should be sent to the President
for his approval on the last day of the session. On June 20, 1874, a
proposition to suspend these rules caused some debate as to the useful
purpose they were intended to serve, and upon the fact, then alleged,
that they had uniformly been suspended since 1822. They were suspended
on this occasion. (First session Forty-third Congress, Record, p.
5309.)
Sec. 3488
3488. The resolution offered by Mr. Pike on August 21, 1856, was
agreed to by the House on the same day, slight opposition only being
made on the ground that it was unconstitutional. The Senate on the same
day announced by resolution that they had concurred in the resolution.
3489. At the close of the Fifty-ninth Congress the President approved
bills as of the hour and minute of the calendar day instead as of the
legislative day.--At the close of the last session of the Fifty-ninth
Congress the calendar day of March 3, 1907, was Sunday. The House and
Senate, in accordance with the usual practice, did not hold a
legislative day of March 3, but by recesses continued the legislative
day of March 2 until noon, March 4. It had heretofore been the practice
of the President of the United States, in approving bills on the
forenoon of March 4, to approve them as of the legislative day. Thus on
noon, Monday, March 4, 1889 \1\ (but on the legislative day of March 2
in both House and Senate), the Congress adjourned sine die. Just before
adjournment a message from the President of the United States informed
the House that he did, ``on the 2d day of March, 1889,'' sign certain
bills, among them the sundry civil appropriation bill (H. R. 12008) and
the deficiency appropriation bill (H. R. 12571). Yet the House journal
shows \2\ that these bills were not signed by the Speaker until the
early hours of the calendar day of March 4, and the Senate Journal
shows the same conclusively.\3\ Therefore the President in his message
referred to the legislative day and not the calendar day. And such had
been the practice,\4\ the President's approval being dated as of the
legislative day and not the calendar day.
In 1907, at the close of the Fifty-ninth Congress, for the first time
the President of the United States \5\ made the late approvals of
specific date on the calendar day. Thus the sundry civil appropriation
bill \6\ was signed ``approved March 4, 1907, 11 a. m.,'' and the
deficiency appropriation bill \7\ was ``approved March 4, 1907, 11 a.
m.;'' also the act ``to promote the safety of travelers upon railroads
by limiting the hours of service of employees thereon'' \8\ was
``approved March 4, 1907, 11.50 a. m.'' \9\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fiftieth Congress, House Journal, p. 776; Senate
Journal, p. 549.
\2\ House Journal, p. 767.
\3\ Senate Journal, p. 539.
\4\ See 28 Stat. L., and others; and also House and Senate Journals
of second session Fifty-third Congress.
\5\ Theodore Roosevelt.
\6\ Public act No. 253, 34 Stat. L.
\7\ Public act No. 254.
\8\ Public act No. 274.
\9\ Hon. John F. Lacey, of Iowa, who had examined the subject of the
approval of bills previous to this innovation, gives the reasons which
make the new method of approval desirable: ``The legislative day is a
fiction. By recesses it sometimes appears that the legislative day in
the Senate is March 3, whilst in the House it is March 2.
``An enrolled bill reaches the President before noon, March 4, and he
considers the actual end of March 3 to be at noon of March 4; so the
bill bears date of approval as March 3. The presumption of the law is
that a bill signed March 3 was the law of the land from the first
moment of that day.
``It sometimes happens that individual rights accrue on the day of
the bill's approval, and it has
Sec. 3490
3490. The approval of a bill by the President of the United States is
valid only with his signature.--On February 26, 1825,\1\ President
Monroe sent to the House a message stating that just before the
termination of the last session of Congress a bill ``concerning wrecks
on the coast of Florida'' was presented to him with many others and
approved, and, as he thought, signed. It appeared, however, after the
adjournment, that the evidence of such approbation had not been
attached to it. Whether the act might be considered in force under such
circumstances was a point which did not belong to him to decide. To
remove all doubts he submitted the propriety of passing a declaratory
act.
The message was referred to the Judiciary Committee, and on February
28 \2\ Mr. Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts, from that committee,
reported a bill to carry into effect the original object intended by
the said act. The opinion of the Judiciary Committee, he said, was that
the bill had no validity until signed by the President, and they
therefore reported a bill in the original form, but having a
prospective operation only. This bill was passed by the House and
became a law, the approval of the President being messaged to the House
March 3, 1825.\3\
3491. An instance where the President, in announcing his approval of
a bill, gave his reasons for so doing.--On August 14, 1848,\4\
President Polk sent a message to the House announcing his approval of
the bill (H. R. 201) entitled ``An act to establish the Territorial
government of Oregon.'' This message ``departed from the form of notice
observed in other cases,'' and the President explaining this on the
ground of the importance of the subject. He then proceeded to give at
length his reasons for approving the bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
been recently held that evidence will be admitted by the court as to
the exact moment of the Presidential approval.
``You will find the cases on the exact time of the taking effect of
the tariff act of 1894 in the following references: U. S. v. Stoddard
et al. (89 Fed., 699, affirmed on appeal in circuit court of appeals);
U. S. v. Stoddard et al. (91 Fed., 1005; 33 Circuit Court of Appeals,
175). In Nunn v. William Gerst Brewing Co., the United States circuit
court of appeals, Taft, Lurlin, and Day, J. J., held that the Dingley
Act took effect July 24, 1897, at 4 minutes past 4 o'clock p. m.,
Washington time. Carriage Co. v. Stengel (95 Fed., 637; 37 Circuit
Court of Appeals, 210); U. S. v. Iselin (87 Fed., 194).
``As to the hour when a new State constitution takes effect, see
Louisville v. Bank (104 U. S., 469): `When justice requires it, the
precise hour may be ascertained;' Bank v. Burkhardt (100 U. S., 686),
Burgess v. Salmon (97 U. S., 381), Lapeyre v. U. S. (17 Wallace, U. S.
C. C.), was mere dictum so far as it discusses this question.
``The old English rule was that a statute took effect the first day
of the session. This was changed by 33 Geo. III, chapter 13. The United
States Supreme Court has recognized the rule in Mathews v. Zane (7
Wheaton, 164) that a Federal statute takes effect at the actual date of
its approval.
``As the hour of approval is the moment of actual enactment, the
President takes the actual calendar as his guide.
The Code Napoleon fixed the time of taking effect of a statute at one
day after promulgation, with additional time of one day for every 20
leagues distance from the capital.''
\1\ Second session Eighteenth Congress, Journal, p. 276.
\2\ Journal, p. 279; Debates, p. 697.
\3\ Journal, p. 315.
\4\ First session Thirtieth Congress, Globe, p. 1081; second session
Thirtieth Congress, Journal, p. 54.
Sec. 3492
On January 14, 1875,\1\ President Grant announced his approval of the
bill (S. 1044) ``to provide for the resumption of specie payments'' by
a message to the Senate, in which he said:
I venture upon this unusual method of conveying the notice of
approval to the House, in which the measure originated, because of its
great importance to the country at large and in order to suggest
further legislation which seems to me essential to make this law
effective.
Then the message proceeded with recommendations.
3492. The act of President Tyler in filing with a bill an exposition
of his reasons for signing it was examined and severely criticised by a
committee of the House.
In 1842 a committee of the House discussed the act of President
Jackson in writing above his signature of approval a memorandum of his
construction of the bill.
On June 27, 1842,\2\ a message was received from President John
Tyler, announcing that he had approved and signed an act originating in
the House of Representatives ``for the apportionment of Representatives
among the several States according to the Sixth Census.'' The message
also continued as follows:
and have caused the same to be deposited in the office of the Secretary
of State, accompanied by an exposition of my reasons for giving it my
sanction.
Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, said that this message was a
novelty in the history of the country. The Constitution required the
President, if he approve a bill, to sign it and not accompany his
signature with reasons. After dwelling on the danger of the precedent
Mr. Adams moved that the message be referred to a select committee, and
that the committee have power to send for persons and papers. On June
29 this motion was agreed to, and the committee was appointed as
follows: Messrs. Adams, John Pope, of Kentucky; Thomas M. T. McKennan,
of Pennsylvania; Robert M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, and George H.
Proffit, of Indiana.
On July 16, 1842, Mr. Adams made a report, and on August 2 and August
11 he attempted, by a suspension of the rules, to bring the report
before the House, but on each occasion failed to obtain the needed two-
thirds.
The report \3\ reviews the constitutional provisions relating to the
presentation of bills to the President, beginning with the first
injunction, ``that if he approve he shall sign it,'' and goes on to
say:
That is all his power; that is all his duty. No power is given him to
alter, to amend, to comment, or to assign reasons for the performance
of his duty. His signature is the exclusive evidence admitted by the
Constitution of his approval, and all addition of extraneous matter
can, in the opinion of the committee, be regarded in no other light
than a defacement of the public records and archives.
The report then goes on to show that the Department of State was
instituted for the express purpose of providing for the safe-keeping of
the acts, records, and seal of the United States, and to quote the law
providing for the deposit of copies of laws with the Secretary of State
as soon as they are signed by the Executive or become laws without his
signature. The committee do not approve the deposit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. VII, p. 314.
\2\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 1025, 1030,
1080, 1202, 1263; Globe, pp. 688, 689, 693, 694, 760.
\3\ House report No. 909, second session Twenty-seventh Congress.
Sec. 3492
of a bill in the office of the Secretary, taking the ground that the
law requires the President personally to deliver it to the proper
custodian; but they waive this point in order to discuss the propriety
of depositing with the act the reasons of the Executive:
The committee can find in the Constitution and laws of the United
States no authority given to the President for depositing in the
Department of State an exposition of his reasons for signing an act of
Congress made by his signature a law, and most especially none for
making the deposit in company with the law. No such power is expressly
conferred by the Constitution; none such is necessary or proper for
giving effect to any other power expressly granted to him. They believe
it to be a power the toleration of which would be of the most dangerous
and pernicious tendency; and they deem it the duty of the House to
arrest and resist this first attempt to exercise it. They have reason
to believe that, unless disavowed and discountenanced in this first
example, its consequences may contribute to prostrate in the dust the
authority of the very law which the President has approved with the
accompaniment of this most extraordinary appendage, and to introduce a
practice which would transfer the legislative power of Congress itself
to the arbitrary will of the Executive.
The deposit in the Department of State by the President of an
exposition of his reasons for signing a law to accompany the law itself
has been hitherto without example. One instance has indeed occurred, on
the 31st of May, 1830, when President Jackson, within an hour before
the close of that session of Congress, sent to this House a message
informing them that he had approved and signed a bill making
appropriations for examinations and surveys, and also for certain works
of internal improvements; but that, as the phraseology of the section
which appropriated the sum of $8,000 for the road from Detroit to
Chicago might be construed to authorize the application for the
continuance of the road beyond the limits of the Territory of Michigan,
he desired to be understood as having approved that bill with the
understanding that the road authorized by that section was not to be
extended beyond the limits of the said Territory.
This was a simple message to the House, informing them what
construction he gave to one section of a law which he had approved and
signed; but not informing them that he had added anything to his
signature upon the bill itself. The most exceptionable part of this
transaction was therefore unknown to the House, and they could take no
action upon it. They laid the message on the table.
It is indeed true that the construction which the President announced
to the House he had given, in approving and signing the bill, to that
section which appropriated money for a road from Detroit to Chicago,
was directly in the face of the letter of the law, and of the
understanding with which it had been passed by both Houses of Congress.
No court of justice, without violating all the rules of construction
observed in judicial tribunals, could have sanctioned that
construction. But that part of the act was to be executed by the
President himself. By the partial and imperfect execution of it,
arresting the road at the limits of the Territory instead of extending
it to Chicago, he defeated the intention of the legislature; but he had
a conscientious constitutional scruple to sustain him. There was no
appeal from his arbitrary decision. The completion of the road,
directed by the solemn act of the Legislature, was prevented by the
will of the President, regulated by his construction of the law, and
the internal improvement of the country by the power of the National
Legislature has from that day been suppressed and nullified.
The real character of the message of President Jackson was an
objection to that section of the bill which made the appropriation for
the road from Detroit to Chicago; and so it was understood at the time.
It was in substance an objection to one section of the bill and in form
an approval of the bill.
The committee are of opinion that this form of proceeding was
unwarranted by the Constitution; but the President, in that case, set
an example far more dangerous and unwarrantable without giving any
notice of it to the House. Immediately over his signature to the bill
he made on the parchment on which the bill was engrossed an
interpolation in the following words: ``I approve this bill and ask a
reference to my communication to Congress of this date in relation
thereto.'' And in this condition with this extraneous matter entered
upon this act, referring to another document not published with the
law, and never acted upon by either House of Congress, this act was
published by the Secretary of State, and with this unwarranted
statement by the President upon its face forming, to all appearance, a
part of the law.
Sec. 3493
The exposition of the President's reasons for signing the
apportionment bill has hitherto not been published with the law. The
precedent alleged in justification of the President's act on this
occasion has not, in this case, been followed by him. The law has been
published by authority of the Secretary of State, without the
exposition of the President's reasons for signing it, which he had
caused to be deposited in the office of the Secretary, with the law.
And this fact leaves it open to conjecture still more painful what
lawful and honorable purpose could he answered by the deposit in the
archives of state of an argument for affixing his signature to an act
which he approved.
An argument for the performance of an indispensible duty would seem
to be, at least, a work of idle supererogation. As well might the
President have caused to be deposited in the Department of State an
exposition of his reasons for performing the most sacred of his
obligations as a citizen or as a man, as he could for assigning reasons
to record his fulfilment of the obligation which he could not, without
violation of his solemn oath, have omitted to do.
A resolution of this House has at length drawn forth from the
Department of State an authenticated copy of this exposition of
reasons, but, the committee are constrained to say, without producing
so much as a plausible reason for the deposit of those reasons in the
office of the Department with the law.
After discussing the reasons of the President, the report continues:
The committee consider the act of the President notified by him to
the House of Representatives in his message of the 25th ultimo, as
unauthorized by the Constitution and laws of the United States,
pernicious in its immediate operation, and imminently dangerous in its
tendencies. They believe it to be the duty of the House to protest
against it, and to place upon their Journal an earnest remonstrance
against its ever being again repeated. They report, therefore, the
following resolution:
``Resolved, That the House of Representatives consider the act of the
President of the United States, notified to them by his message of the
25th ultimo, viz, his causing to be deposited in the office of the
Secretary of State with the act of Congress entitled `An act for an
apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to
the sixth census,' approved and signed by him, an exposition of his
reasons for giving to the said act his sanction as unwarranted by the
Constitution and laws of the United States, injurious to the public
interests, and of evil example for the future; and this House do hereby
solemnly protest against the said act of the President and against its
ever being repeated or adduced as a precedent hereafter.''
3493. President Johnson contended that he might not approve bills
during a recess of Congress.--On July 8, 1867,\1\ Mr. Joseph W.
McClurg, of Missouri, submitted the following:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That the Clerk of the House of Representatives be instructed and
directed, and is hereby instructed and directed, to reenroll House
Resolution No. 6 of this, the Fortieth Congress, that the same may be
again signed by the presiding officers of the Senate and House, and be
again presented to the President for his approval.
The circumstances under which this resolution was offered were as
follows: The Fortieth Congress had, by concurrent resolution, taken a
recess from March 30, 1867, until July 3, 1867. Previous to this recess
the resolution No. 6 had passed both Houses and been signed by the
presiding officers of each, but by an oversight it was not presented to
the President until two days after the Congress had adjourned for the
recess. The President did not sign the resolution, but filed it in the
State Department with this indorsement:
The first session of the Fortieth Congress adjourned on the 30th day
of March, 1867. This bill, which was passed during that session, was
not presented for my approval by Hon. Edmund G. Ross, of the Senate of
the United States, and a member of the Committee on Enrolled Bills,
until Monday, the 1st day of April, 1867, two days after the
adjournment. It is not believed that the approval of any bill after the
adjournment of Congress, whether presented before or after such
adjournment, is
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fortieth Congress, Journal, p. 170; Globe, pp. 510,
512, 606.
Sec. 3493
authorized by the Constitution of the United States, that instrument
expressly declaring that no bill shall become a law the return of which
may have been prevented by the adjournment of Congress. To concede
that, under the Constitution, the President, after the adjournment of
Congress, may, without limitation in respect to time, exercise the
power of approval and thus determine at his discretion whether or not
bills shall become laws, might subject the legislative and executive
departments of the Government to influences most pernicious to correct
legislation and sound public morals, and, with a single exception,
occurring during the prevalence of civil war, would be contrary to the
established practice of the Government from its inauguration to the
present time. This bill will therefore be filed in the office of the
Secretary of State without my approval.
Andrew Johnson.
Washington, D.C., April 20, 1867.
The Speaker,\1\ after stating that the gentleman from Missouri had
risen for a privileged question, said:
The opening sentence of that indorsement is this: ``The first session
of the Fortieth Congress adjourned on the 30th day of March, 1867.'' If
that were true, there is no question that the President would not have
the power to sign the bill, but the first session of the Fortieth
Congress did not adjourn on the 30th day of March, 1867; they took a
recess only until the 3d day of July, at which time, if a quorum did
not appear in each House, it was provided that the first session should
stand adjourned without day. If Congress had adjourned on the 30th of
March last, then it could not now be in session unless it has been
called together by proclamation of the President. The Constitution of
the United States declares that ``Congress shall assemble at least once
in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in
December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.'' By law
Congress has enacted that the first session of such Congress hereafter
shall begin on the 4th day of March, leaving the provision in regard to
the other sessions to remain as it was. If the first session of
Congress had adjourned on the 30th of March it could not have met,
unless at the call of the President, before the first Monday in
December next. The question is whether the President has the right,
according to usage, according to law, and according to the
Constitution, to sign a bill during this prolonged recess. The Chair is
of the opinion that there is no question as to his power to sign a bill
during a recess of a session of the two Houses of Congress. This power
has been exercised frequently, and as well by the present occupant of
the Presidential chair as by his predecessors. Congress has been in the
usage of taking a recess over the Christmas holidays for ten days or
two weeks under that clause of the Constitution which allows the two
Houses to take a recess for more than three days by concurrent
resolution. During the last holiday recess, from the 20th of December
to the 3d of January following, a bill granting land to aid in the
construction of a military road from Eugene City to the eastern
boundary of Oregon, which had previously passed, was signed by the
President on the 26th of December, in the midst of this two weeks'
recess, and has been properly published as one of the laws of the
United States. If he could sign a bill during a recess of two weeks, it
seems as if there could be no question that he has the power to sign a
bill or to refuse to sign it where a recess may last three, four, or
five weeks, or months. When Congress adjourns without day it is an
entirely different question, and the Chair thinks that the President
could not sign a bill presented after that adjournment. But this
session has not adjourned; it is the same session which passed the
bill, and under the existing state of facts the Chair thinks that the
House might direct the reenrollment of the bill, so that it may again
be submitted to the President. It is, however, for the House to decide.
The House, after brief debate, during which the point was made that
the bill was already a law because of the lapse of ten days without the
return of it with objections, agreed to the resolutions, ayes 71, noes
28.
The resolution came up in the Senate on the same day, and the
consideration was deferred until July 12, when the subject was debated,
both on its merits and in respect of a rule of the Senate that no
general legislation should be taken up during the session. The
resolution was finally declared out of order under the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
Sec. 3494
rule. Before this decision was reached the question was considered on
its merits. Mr. John B. Henderson, of Missouri, recalled that on the
12th of March, 1863, after the adjournment of Congress, the President
signed a bill under which thirty or forty millions of property had been
collected and turned into the Treasury. The point was also made that
under the joint rules the Committee on Enrolled Bills were expected to
report the fact of their presentation of bills to the President, and
this report should be entered on the Journals. In the present case such
report had not and could not be made. The point that the bill had
become a law by reason of the failure of the President to return it was
also considered.
This resolution was not considered again. At the next session of
Congress a new joint resolution to effect the same purpose for the
Missouri troops was introduced in the House and passed there, as House
Resolution 147.
3494. On January 24, 1868,\1\ the Senate received from President
Johnson a message responding to the inquiry of the Senate in regard to
the bill (S. 141) ``for the further security of equal rights in the
District of Columbia.'' The message states the facts in regard to this
bill and the object of the inquiry:
Inasmuch as the bill ``for the further securing of equal rights in
the District of Columbia,'' has not become a law in either of the modes
designated in the section above quoted (law of Sept. 15, 1789), 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 presented 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 11th day of December, 1867.
On the 20th of the same month and before the expiration 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 declares 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 adjournment of Congress
before ten days for its consideration had been allowed the Executive.
Mr. George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, in making a motion to refer the
message to the Judiciary Committee, referred to a case which arose in
New Hampshire in 1863, and which was passed on by the supreme court of
that State, the decision being that the construction held by President
Johnson was not correct. Both Mr. Edmunds and Mr. Charles Sumner, of
Massachusetts, held that the recess adjournment was not like an
adjournment sine die. The motion to refer to the Judiciary Committee
was agreed to.
On February 17, 1868,\2\ Mr. Edmunds reported, with the unanimous
approval of the Judiciary Committee a bill (S. 366) ``regulating the
presentation of bills to the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 720.
\2\ Second session Fortieth Congress, Globe, pp. 1204, 1371, 1404,
1406, 1834, 1840, 2078.
Sec. 3495
President and the return of the same.'' On February 24 this bill was
taken up. It provided that the ten days mentioned in section 7 of
article 1 of the Constitution, within which the President of the United
States is required to return to the House in which it originated any
bill not approved by him, shall be held and construed to be ten
calendar days (Sundays excepted) next after the day of the presentation
of any such bill to him; and the adjournment of Congress which shall
prevent the return of any such bill by the President to that House in
which it originated, is to be held and construed to be the final
adjournment of a session, and not an adjournment of either or both
Houses of Congress, acting by themselves or with the consent of each
other, as provided for in the Constitution, to a particular day. And if
at any time within those ten days the President shall desire to return
a bill to the House in which it originated, or send a message to such
House that he has signed the same, when such House is not sitting, it
is to be lawful for him to return such bill or send such message to the
office of the Secretary of the Senate or Clerk of the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, and the Secretary or Clerk is to
indorse thereon the day on which the return shall be made or the
message received, and make entry of the fact of such return or the
receipt of such message in his journal of the proceedings; and such
return or sending of such message is to be deemed and taken to be a
return of the bill to the House in which it originated, or a sending of
a message to the House to all intent and purposes. Every bill which,
having passed both Houses of Congress and having been presented to the
President as provided in the Constitution, shall not have been returned
by the President with his objections thereto to that House in which it
originated within the time herein defined and declared is to be a law;
and it is to be the duty of the President in such case immediately to
deliver such bill so having become a law to the Secretary of State, who
shall receive and proceed with the same in the same manner as may be
provided by law for bills signed by the President, and to certify
thereon and in the promulgation thereof that such bill has become a law
for the cause stated. The time mentioned in the act is to be computed
by excluding the day on which a bill may be presented to the President
and including the tenth day (Sundays excepted) thereafter.
This bill, after debate, passed the Senate on March 24 by a vote of
yeas 29, nays 11. It was sent to the House, but not acted on.
3495. The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of an act presented to
the President while Congress was sitting, and signed by him within ten
days, but after the Congress had adjourned for a recess.--In the case
of La Abra Silver Mining Company v. United States, the Supreme Court of
the United States rendered, through Mr. Justice Harlan, an opinion \1\
as to the power of the President to approve a bill after the
adjournment of Congress for a recess within a session.
The ground of this contention,
the opinion holds in considering this branch of the case,
is that having met in regular session at the time appointed by law, the
first Monday of December, 1892, and having on the 22d day of that month
(two days after the presentation of the bill to the President) by
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 175 U.S., p. 451.
Sec. 3495
the joint action of the two Houses taken a recess to a named day,
January 4, 1893, Congress was not actually sitting when the President
on the 28th day of December, 1892, by signing it formally approved the
act in question. The proposition, plainly stated, is that a bill passed
by Congress and duly presented to the President does not become a law
if his approval be given on a day when Congress is in recess. This
implies that the constitutional power of the President to approve a
bill so as to make it a law is absolutely suspended while Congress is
in recess for a fixed time. It would follow from this that if both
Houses of Congress by their joint or separate action were in recess
from some Friday until the succeeding Monday, the President could not
exercise that power on the intervening Saturday. Indeed, according to
the argument of counsel the President could not effectively approve a
bill on any day when one of the Houses, by its own separate action, was
legally in recess for that day in order that necessary repairs be made
in the room in which its sessions were being held. Yet many public acts
and joint resolutions of great importance together with many private
acts have been treated as valid and enforceable which were approved by
the President during the recesses of Congress covering the Christmas
holidays.\1\
The opinion proceeds to quote the clauses of the Constitution bearing
on the case, sections 4, 5, 7, and 8, of Article I, and continues:
It is said that the approval by the President of a bill passed by
Congress is not strictly an executive function, but is legislative in
its nature; and this view, it is argued, conclusively shows that his
approval can legally occur only on a day when both Houses are actually
sitting in the performance of legislative functions. Undoubtedly the
President when approving bills passed by Congress may be said to
participate in the enactment of laws which the Constitution requires
him to execute. But that consideration does not determine the question
before us. As the Constitution, while authorizing the President to
perform certain functions of a limited number that are legislative in
their general nature, does not restrict the exercise of those functions
to the particular days on which the two Houses are actually sitting in
the transaction of public business, the court cannot impose such a
restriction upon the Executive. It is made his duty by the Constitution
to examine and act upon every bill pawed by Congress. The time within
which he must approve or disapprove a bill is prescribed. If he approve
a bill, it is made his duty to sign it. The Constitution is silent as
to the time of his signing, except that his approval of a bill duly
presented to him--if the bill is to become a law merely by virtue of
such approval--must be manifested by his signature within ten days,
Sundays excepted, after the bill has been presented to him. It
necessarily results that a bill when so signed becomes from that moment
a law. But in order that his refusal or failure to act may not defeat
the will of the people, as expressed by Congress, if a bill be not
approved and be not returned to the House in which it originated within
that time, it becomes a law in like manner as if it had been signed by
him. We perceive nothing in these constitutional provisions making the
approval of a bill by the President a nullity if such approval occurs
while the two Houses of Congress are in recess for a named time. After
a bill has been presented to the President, no further action is
required by Congress in respect of that bill unless it be disapproved
by him and within the time prescribed by the Constitution be returned
for reconsideration. It has properly been the practice of the President
to inform Congress by message of his approval of bills, so that the
fact may be recorded. But the essential thing to be done in order that
a bill may become a law by the approval of the President is that it be
signed within the prescribed time after being presented to him. That
being done, and as soon as done, whether Congress is informed or not by
message from the President of the fact of his approval of it, the bill
becomes a law, and is delivered to the Secretary of State as required
by law.
Much of the argument of counsel seems to rest upon the provision in
relation to the final adjournment of Congress for the session, whereby
the President is prevented from returning, within the period prescribed
by the Constitution, a bill that he disapproves and is unwilling to
sign. But the Constitution places the approval and disapproval of
bills, as to their becoming laws, upon a different basis. If the
President does not approve a bill, he is required within a named time
to send it back for consideration. But if by its action, after the
presentation of a bill to the President during the time given him by
the Constitution for an examination of its provisions and for approving
it by his signature, Congress puts it out of his power to return it,
not approved, within that time to the House in which it originated,
then the bill fails and does not become a law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Here are quoted acts passed in the years from 1862 to 1897.
Sec. 3496
Whether the President can sign a bill after the final adjournment of
Congress for the session is a question not arising in this case, and
has not been considered or decided by us. We adjudge--and touching this
branch of the case adjudge nothing more--that the act of 1892 having
been presented to the President while Congress was sitting, and having
been signed by him when Congress was in recess for a specified time,
but within ten days, Sundays excepted, after it was so presented to
him, was effectively approved, and immediately became a law, unless its
provisions are repugnant to the Constitution.\1\
3496. The President, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, may sign
a bill at any time within ten days after Congress has adjourned for a
recess.--On December 28, 1892,\2\ the Attorney-General of the United
States (Mr. W. H. H. Miller) rendered to the President an opinion, of
which the following is the syllabus:
When Congress adjourns, not sine die, for a longer period than ten
days, exclusive of Sundays, and certain bills at a time less than ten
days prior to such adjournment are placed in the President's hands for
approval or disapproval, it is competent for him to approve any bill
during the period of such adjournment. Semble, that bills not signed,
coming to him under such circumstances, would not become a law at the
expiration of the ten days. In view of the uncertainty it is advised
that bills coming to the President during a recess of Congress, or
within ten days prior thereto, be signed or vetoed as they meet his
approval or disapproval, and, in case of veto, be returned to Congress
when it reconvenes; any question as to their validity can then be
settled by the courts.
In his opinion the Attorney-General says:
On the 22d of December, by a concurrent resolution, the two Houses of
Congress adjourned until the 4th day of January next. That resolution
reads as follows:
``Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That when the two Houses adjourn on Thursday, December 22, they will
stand adjourned until Wednesday, January 4, 1893.''
The time covered by this adjournment, exclusive of Sundays, exceeds
ten days. Shortly before the adjournment, certain bills passed by the
two Houses of Congress having been placed in your hands for approval or
disapproval, you now ask whether it is competent for you to give such
approval or disapproval during the period of such adjournment.
Your right to approve is settled in the affirmative by the Supreme
Court in Seven Hickory v. Ellery (103 U. S., 423). That was a case
arising under the constitution of Illinois, but as to this question
that instrument was identical with the Federal Constitution. The
decision goes so far as to uphold the approval of a bill within the ten
days, even though the adjournment be sine die. But the question as to a
temporary adjournment on unsigned bills remains.
No formal opinion by any of my predecessors, so far as the records of
this Department show, has been given upon this question. I find,
however, memoranda communicated by Attorney-General Devens to President
Hayes, as follows: [Here Mr. Devens states that he finds no decisions
of courts of the United States in which the clause of the Constitution
in question is construed. He cites three State decisions in similar
cases--45 N. H., 610; 39 Cal., 206, and 33 Ill., 135, 139, 153.)
``In this conflict of authorities it is impossible conclusively to
answer the question whether, if Congress should take a recess after a
bill was sent to the President for his signature so long in duration
that he would not have an opportunity to return the same within ten
days with his objections, such bill having been presented to him at
such time that the ten days would not be given to him for consideration
previous to the recess, such bill would become a law in like manner as
if he had signed it. At the same time, the best opinion to which I can
arrive is that in the case supposed the bill would not become a law at
the expiration of the ten days. There is no mode provided by which the
President can during the recess communicate with the House, and one of
two results must follow: Either the bill becomes a law when he has not
had the time prescribed by the Constitution for consideration and
reflec-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On March 31, 1840, President Van Buren approved a bill of the
House (No. 18) ``additional to the act on the subject of Treasury
notes,'' and omitted to send notice of this approval to the House.
(First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 1370.)
\2\ Opinions of Attorney-General, Vol. XX, p. 503.
Sec. 3497
tion upon it, or else, Congress taking a recess under such
circumstances and thus preventing him from communicating with them, the
bill does not become a law because by their own act of adjournment they
have prevented him from having the time for consideration which is
intended by the Constitution. [Here follows a brief reference to the
clause of the Constitution providing for the return of a vetoed bill.]
* * * All these provisions indicate that in order to enable the
President to return a bill the House should be in session; and if by
their own act they see fit to adjourn and deprive him of the
opportunity to return the bill, with his objections, and are not
present themselves to receive and record these objections and to act
thereon, the bill can not become a law unless ten days shall have
expired during which the President will have had the opportunity thus
to return it.\1\ There is no suggestion that he may return it to the
Speaker, or Clerk, or any officer of the House; but the return must be
made to the House as an organized body.''
Hon. George F. Edmunds, President pro tempore of the Senate, in a
note to President Arthur under date of December 24, 1884, expressing a
like opinion, says:
``A bill * * * has passed both Houses of Congress and was presented
for my signature after both Houses have adjourned until 5th of January.
This is more than ten days, and, if it were now presented to you, you
could not return it with your objections. I do not know what the
practice has been, but it would seem to me as if the bill could not
become a law constitutionally; but if you think it can I will send it
to you.''
This note was probably not carefully considered, but it is of value
as the impression of a lawyer and legislator of great ability and
experience.
The Attorney-General, after discussing the nature of the recess in
question, concludes that it is not an adjournment within the meaning of
the clause of the Constitution under discussion. As the approval or
disapproval of a bill by the President has been sometimes held to be a
legislative act, required to be done while the Congress is in session,
the Attorney-General finds difficulties in giving a definite opinion,
and concludes upon the whole that the course indicated in the syllabus
should be pursued.
On January 4, 1893,\2\ on the reassembling of Congress after the
recess, the President communicated to the Senate notice that he had
approved sundry bills on December 22 and December 28, during the
recess, but there appears no message of disapproval of any bill.
3497. An instance where the President signed a bill after the
adjournment of Congress.--On May 16, 1864,\3\ the House ordered--
that the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire and report
to the House by what warrant or authority the act \4\ entitled ``An act
to provide for the collection of abandoned property and for the
prevention of frauds in insurrectionary districts within the United
States'' was approved on the 12th day of March, 1863, and whether said
act is still in force.
On June 11, 1864, Mr. James F. Wilson, of Iowa, from the committee,
made this report: \5\
On the reception of this resolution the committee caused a note to be
addressed to the Secretary of State, asking to be informed whether,
``as a matter of fact, it appeared on the original files in the State
Department that the act referred to was approved on the 12th day of
March, 1863.''
In reply to this note, the Secretary of State responded that ``the
original act is, to all appearances, regular in every respect of form;
as to the date of its approval--that of 12th of March, 1863--the words
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This question was subject of a decision in Connecticut about
1904.
\2\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Record, p. 301.
\3\ First session Thirty-eighth Congress, Globe, p. 2290.
\4\ See 12 Stat. L., p. 820.
\5\ House Report No. 108, first session Thirty-eighth Congress.
\6\ House Report No. 108, first session Thirty-eighth Congress.
Sec. 3498
and figures `approved March 12, 1863,' are in the handwriting of the
President, and followed by his signature.''
Thus it appears, from the original files in the State Department,
that said act was approved March 12, 1863, and this is true, in fact,
as to the date of approval.
The section of the Constitution of the United States bearing upon
this question reads as follows:
``If any bill shall not be returned by the President 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 adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it
shall not be a law.''
The committee are informed that in the great press of business
immediately preceding the adjournment of Congress on the 4th of March,
1863, the act which is made the subject-matter of inquiry by the
resolution of the House was passed to the Secretary of the Treasury for
examination, as it related particularly to his Department. It did not
reach the President again until after the adjournment of Congress, when
it was approved by him under the belief that the last clause of the
section of the Constitution, above quoted, was designed more especially
to prevent Congress from enacting laws without the approval of the
Executive, which might be done by the passage of bills by the two
Houses, followed by an adjournment, before the President could examine
and return them, were it not for the declaration that in such cases the
bills shall not be laws; and did not relate to cases wherein the
Executive should approve bills sent to him by Congress within ten days,
even though an adjournment should occur before the return of the bills.
That there is force and plausibility in this position, a little
reflection will discover to any mind; but the committee can not receive
it as a correct interpretation of the Constitution.
The ten days' limitation contained in the section above quoted refers
to the time during which Congress remains in session, and has no
application after adjournment. Hence, if the Executive can hold a bill
ten days after adjournment, and then approve it, he can as well hold it
ten months before approval. This would render the laws of the country
too uncertain, and could not have been intended by the framers of the
Constitution.
The spirit of the Constitution evidently requires the performance of
every act necessary to the enactment and approval of laws to be perfect
before the adjournment of Congress.
The committee, therefore, conclude that the act referred to, approved
March 12, 1863, is not in force; and in this conclusion the committee
are unanimous.\1\
3498. A bill that had not actually passed, having been enrolled and
signed by the President of the United States, was disregarded by the
Executive, and Congress passed another bill.--On March 11, 1836,\2\ the
House considered a joint resolution (No. 2) to place the name of
Benedict Alford on the pension roll. The Debates of March 18,\3\ give
the following explanation of the presentation of this resolution:
At the first session of the Twenty-third Congress a bill passed the
House of Representatives granting pensions to Benedict Alford and
Robert Brush, soldiers of the Revolutionary war. By the Journals of the
Senate it appears that this bill was indefinitely postponed in that
body, and the House of Representatives was so notified. And it is also
so entered on the Journal of the House. The postponement of the bill in
the Senate in the last hour of the session was inadvertently overlooked
by the enrolling clerk, as well as by the Committee on Enrolled Bills
in the House, and it was enrolled and signed by the officers of the two
Houses, and presented to, and approved by, the President. A few days
after the adjournment of Congress the error was discovered in the
Clerk's office in the House of Representatives, and notice of the fact
was immediately given to the War Department. The Secretary of War
thereupon declined complying with the provisions of the bill, under the
conviction that it was not a valid statute. At the last session of
Congress the President communicated the fact to the Senate by message.
No
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The act of July 2, 1864 (13 Stat. L., p. 375), was amendatory of
the act ``approved March 12, 1863,'' thereby indicating that the latter
act was still considered a law. (See Globe, first session, thirty-
eighth Congress, p. 2820, for debate on the bill S. 232.)
\2\ First session Twenty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 470, 498, 525,
526; Debates, pp. 2747, 2881.
\3\ Debates, p. 2881.
Sec. 3499
action in the case was, however, had in either House at the last
session. At the present session Benedict Alford again presented his
petition, which was referred to the Committee on Revolutionary
Pensions. The committee reported that, in its opinion, the act was a
valid one, and that no further legislation was necessary to give a
pension to the petitioner, which, in their opinion, the Secretary of
War was bound to pay him. A member of the committee, differing with the
majority, after the report was made, moved the resolution directing the
Secretary of War to execute the act, which had passed in the manner
herein stated.
The subject was elaborately discussed on March 11 and 18, and after
various methods of procedure had been proposed, the House finally--
Resolved, That the joint resolution to place the names of Benedict
Alford and Robert Brush on the pension list be referred to the
Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, with instruction to report a bill
for the relief of Benedict Alford and Robert Brush.
Such a bill was duly reported and became a law.\1\
3499. The President sometimes, at the close of a Congress, informs
the House as to both the bills he has signed and those he has allowed
to fail.--In 1873, on March 3,\2\ the last day of the session and the
Congress, the President sent a message to the House giving notice both
of the bills that he approved,\3\ and also of those which did not
receive his signature and failed to become laws.
3500. On December 14, 1842,\4\ President Tyler sent a message to the
House informing that body that he had failed to sign two bills at the
close of the preceding session of Congress--the bill relating to the
sale of the public lands and the granting of preemption rights, and the
bill regulating the taking of testimony in contested election cases.
The President abstained from expressing an opinion as to the merits of
these bills which had thus failed to become laws, but stated that they
were sent to him too late for him to have time to read them through and
sign them. He expressed a strong opinion in favor of an adherence to
the then existing joint rule of the two Houses which prohibited the
presentation of a bill to the President on the last day of the session.
3501. On December 18, 1843,\5\ President Tyler communicated to the
House his reasons for withholding his signature from the bill
``directing payment of the certificates of awards issued by the
commissioners under the treaty with the Cherokee Indians.'' This bill
had been sent to the President in the closing hours of the previous
Congress, and had consequently failed to become a law.
3502. On December 6, 1832,\6\ President Jackson transmitted to the
House of Representatives a message stating his objections to the bill
``for the improvement of certain harbors and the navigation of certain
rivers,'' which was not received by him a sufficient length of time
before the close of the last session to enable him to examine it before
adjournment, and from which he had withheld his signature, so that it
had not become a law.
It does not appear that any action was taken on this message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Journal, pp. 618, 810, 823.
\2\ Third session Forty-second Congress, Journal, p. 592; Globe, p.
2137.
\3\ The President by message informs the House from time to time of
bills which he has approved.
\4\ Third session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 57.
\5\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 69.
\6\ Second session Twenty-second Congress, Journal, p. 24; Debates,
p. 819.
Sec. 3503
3503. The President notifies the House of bills that have become laws
without his approval.--On February 22 and March 2, 1861,\1\ President
Buchanan notified the House of bills that had become laws without his
signature through the expiration of the ten days' limit prescribed by
the Constitution.
3504. An instance where the President communicated his omission to
sign a bill through the committee appointed to notify him that Congress
was about to adjourn.--On May 31, 1830,\2\ Mr. Henry W. Dwight, of
Massachusetts, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the
President of the United States and inform him that, unless he might
have other communications to make to Congress, the two Houses were
ready to close the present session by an adjournment, reported that
they had fulfilled their duties; and that they were informed by the
President that he had no further communications to make to Congress at
the present session; but that he had retained, for further
consideration, two bills, viz, the bill (H. R. 304) making
appropriations for building light-houses and light-boats, etc., and the
bill (S. 74) to authorize a subscription for stock on the part of the
United States in the Louisville and Portland Canal Company.
The House adjourned sine die soon after, no further communication
being received from the President.
3505. An instance where the President returned a bill already signed
by him in order that enrollment might be corrected.--On March 12,
1804,\3\ the House unanimously resolved that the Joint Committee on
Enrolled Bills be instructed to wait on the President of the United
States and lay before him the engrossed bill entitled ``An act for the
relief of the captors of the Moorish armed ships Meshouda and
Mirboha,'' with the several amendments, as the same was finally passed
by both Houses of Congress, and to state the variance between the said
engrossed bill and the enrollment thereof as approved by the President;
and to request that he will cause the said enrolled bill to be returned
to this House, in which it originated, for the purpose of rendering the
said bill conformable with the engrossed bill and the amendments
thereto as passed by the two Houses of Congress.
The Senate having concurred, and the joint committee having performed
the duty and reported, a message was later received from the President
transmitting the bill. The bill was then committed to the Joint
Committee for Enrolled Bills, with instructions to make the corrections
and report the same to the two Houses.
It appears that the President \4\ had already approved the bill, and
on February 24, 1804, had announced that fact by message to the
House.\5\
On March 17, 1804,\6\ Mr. Jacob Richards, of Pennsylvania, from the
joint committee on enrolled bills, reported that the committee had
corrected the variance between the engrossed bill and the enrollment
thereof, as approved by the President of the United States on the 24th
ultimo, and that the said enrolled bill had been
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Thirty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 424, 480.
\2\ First session Twenty-first Congress, Journal, p. 312.
\3\ First session Eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 641, 649, 650.
\4\ Thomas Jefferson, President.
\5\ Journal, p. 600. See history of House bill No. 160.
\6\ Journal, p. 660.
Sec. 3506
rendered conformable with the engrossed bill and the amendments
thereto, as the same was finally passed by both Houses of Congress.
Thereupon the Speaker signed the said enrolled bill.
On March 19 \1\ a message from the President announced that he had
that day approved the bill.
3506. A bill wrongly enrolled was recalled from the President, who
erased his signature, and recommitted to the Committee on Enrolled
Bills with instructions.--On January 4, 1901,\2\ Mr. John F. Lacey, of
Iowa, as a privileged resolution, offered the following:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That the President of the United States is hereby requested to return
to the House the bill (H. R. 2955) entitled ``An act providing for a
resurvey of township No. 8 of range No. 30 west, of the sixth meridian,
in Frontier County, State of Nebraska,'' in order to correct an error
whereby the bill has been enrolled as an act of the first instead of
the second session of the Fifty-sixth Congress.
In offering the resolution Mr. Lacey explained that the bill was
enrolled and signed by the Speaker of the House in the preceding
session--that is, the first session of the Fifty-sixth Congress. But
the President of the Senate did not sign it until the second session.
When it was transmitted to the President of the United States he signed
it,\3\ but it was afterwards discovered that the act, while approved as
of the second session, was enrolled as of the first session.\4\ The
President thereupon erased his name, and called the attention of the
Speaker to the situation.
The resolution was considered and agreed to by the House.
On January 5,\5\ the President, by message, returned the bill to the
House.
Thereupon Mr. Lacey offered, as privileged, the following resolution:
Resolved, That the message and House bill 2955 be recommitted to the
Committee on Enrolled Bills, with instructions that it be reenrolled as
a bill of the second session of the Fifty-sixth Congress.
The resolution was agreed to.
3507. Bills sent to the President but not yet signed by him are
sometimes recalled by concurrent resolution of the two Houses.
It is for the House and not the Speaker to determine whether or not a
proposed action is within the constitutional power of the House.
Instance wherein an enrolled bill recalled from the President was
afterwards amended. (Footnote.)
On July 7, 1890,\6\ Mr. George W. E. Dorsey, of Nebraska, moved that
the rules be suspended so as to pass the following concurrent
resolution:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That the President be requested to return to the House of
Representatives the bill (H. R. 5974) extending the time of payment of
purchasers of land to the Omaha tribe of Indians in the State of
Nebraska, and for other purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Journal, p. 663.
\2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 85; Record, p.
553.
\3\ The bill was actually received at the White House December 19,
and was signed December 21, 1900.
\4\ See Senate Joint Resolution No. 64, of first session Fifty-fifth
Congress, for an instance where the Speaker did not at the subsequent
session sign a resolution enrolled as of the first session.
\5\ Journal, p. 90; Record, p. 606.
\6\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 828.
Sec. 3508
Mr. W. C. P. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, made the point of order that
it was out of the power of the House or the two Houses of Congress
under the Constitution to recall a bill from the President.
After debate on the point of order, the Speaker \1\ overruled the
same, although without passing on the constitutional question raised,
which was a matter for the House to consider in passing upon the
question and not for the Chair to decide, ruling that the motion was a
legitimate and proper parliamentary motion, in order under the
rules.\2\
3508. On February 13, 1896,\3\ Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, by
unanimous consent,\4\ presented, and the House agreed to, the following
resolution:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That the President of the United States is hereby requested to return
to the House Senate bill 79, for the correction of a verbal error.
3509. On April 3, 1902,\5\ in the Senate, the following message was
received:
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 1st instant (the
House of Representatives concurring), I return herewith Senate bill No.
2291, entitled ``An act for the promotion of anatomical science and to
prevent the desecration of graves in the District of Columbia.''
Theodore Roosevelt.
White House, April 3, 1902.
Mr. Jacob H. Gallinger, of New Hampshire, said the bill had been
returned for the purpose of having it amended.
By the advice of the President pro tempore \6\ the bill was referred
to the Committee on the District of Columbia.
3510. The process of recalling from the President and amending an
enrolled bill.--On February 13, 1906 \7\ in the Senate, Mr. John T.
Morgan, of Alabama, offered the following resolution, which was agreed
to:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),
That the President is requested to return to the House of
Representatives House bill 297, to authorize the construction of dams
and power stations on the Tennessee River at Muscle Shoals, Alabama,
for the purpose of amendment.
Mr. Morgan explained the purpose of the resolution as follows:
That bill passed both Houses and went to the President. There is a
difficulty in the draft of the bill which his challenged the attention
of the President and raises in his mind an objection to the bill, which
difficulty can be removed by amendment exactly in accordance with the
purpose for which the bill was offered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\2\ The Houses call only for bills which have not yet been signed by
the President, or which are supposed not to have been signed.
\3\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1703.
\4\ This bill was taken up on February 18, and, by unanimous consent,
the votes whereby it had been ordered to a third reading and passed
were reconsidered, the amendment was made, and the bill was, by
unanimous consent, passed. (Record, first session Fifty-fourth
Congress, p. 1904.) Resolutions asking for the recall of a bill have
usually been presented by unanimous consent (see Congressional Record,
first session Fiftieth Congress, p. 7996), although on June 2, 1896,
one was presented as privileged. (See Congressional Record, first
session Fifty-fourth Congress, p. 6009.)
\5\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3614.
\6\ William P. Frye, of Maine, President pro tempore.
\7\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 2475.
Sec. 3511
On the same day the resolution was agreed to by the House,\1\ and on
the next day \2\ the bill was returned by the President to the House.
On February 23,\3\ the House agreed to the following resolution,
after some debate as to the method of procedure:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That the action of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and of
the President pro tempore of the Senate in signing the enrolled bill H.
R. 297--``An act to authorize the construction of dams and power
stations on the Tennessee River at Muscle Shoals, Alabama''--be
rescinded, and that in the reenrollment of the bill the following
amendments be made:
Amend section 1 of the enrolled bill by striking out, after the word
``elect,'' at the end of line 5, section 1, page 1, the following:
``between the mouth of Malletts Creek on the east, and,'' in line 6 of
said section and insert in lieu thereof ``and the Secretary of War may
approve between a point on the southern side of the river opposite to
or below the head or opening of the canal constructed by the United
States on the north side of the river, on the east, and.'' Insert after
the word ``river,'' in line 10 of said section 1, page 1, the
following: ``between the two points above mentioned.''
Amend by adding, after the word ``war,'' in line 13, of said section
1, page 1, of said enrolled bill, the following: ``for the protection
of navigation and the property and other interests of the United
States;'' so that said section 1 of the enrolled bill when amended will
read as follows:
``Be it enacted, etc., That any person, company, or corporation
having authority therefor under the laws of the State of Alabama may
hereafter erect, maintain, and use a dam or dams * * * etc.
Amend section 2, page 1, of said enrolled bill, by striking out after
the word ``canal,'' in line 25, page 1, of said section, all down to
and including the word ``river,'' in line 25 of said section 2.
Amend said section 2, page 1, of the enrolled bill, by striking out
after the word ``canal,'' in line 28, page 1, all down to and including
the word ``river,'' in line 29, and insert in lieu thereof the
following: ``or the Tennessee River;'' so that said section 2 of the
enrolled bill as amended will read as follows:
``Sec. 2. That detailed plans for the construction and operation of a
dam or dams and other appurtenant and necessary works shall be
submitted * * *'' etc.
Amend section 3, page 2, of said enrolled bill, by striking out all
after the word ``otherwise,'' in line 17, of said section 3, page 2,
down to and including the word ``damage'' at the end of line 18 of said
section and page, and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``in a
court of competent jurisdiction;'' so that said section 3 of said
enrolled bill after being so amended will read:
``Sec. 3. That the Government of the United States reserves * * *''
etc.
On February 28 \4\ the Senate concurred in the action of the House,
although a question was raised as to the propriety of the action.
3511. On March 23, 1906,\5\ by unanimous consent Mr. John H.
Stephens, of Texas, offered the following resolution, which was agreed
to:
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the President be, and hereby is, requested to return
to the House the bill (H. R. 431) to open for settlement 505,000 acres
of land in the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Indian reservations in
Oklahoma Territory.
On March 29, 1906,\6\ the Speaker said:
The Chair lays before the House the following message from the
President of the United States, which it is proper to say was received
in the legislative day of yesterday, but owing to the business of the
House it was not convenient to lay it before the House at that time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Record, p. 2506.
\2\ Record, p. 2553.
\3\ Record, pp. 2889-2900.
\4\ Record, pp. 3050, 3102.
\5\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 4201.
\6\ Record, pp. 4154-4156.
Sec. 3513
The Clerk read as follows:
To the House of Representatives:
In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of
the 26th instant (the Senate concurring), I return herewith House bill
No. 431, entitled ``An act to open for settlement 505,000 acres of land
in the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Indian reservations in Oklahoma
Territory.''
Theodore Roosevelt.
The White House, March 28, 1906.
Mr. Stephens, of Texas, offered the following resolution in reference
to the same matter and asked unanimous consent for its present
consideration:
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the action of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and of the Vice-President of the United States and the
President of the Senate in signing the enrolled bill H. R. No. 431,
entitled ``A bill to open for settlement 505,000 acres of land in the
Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Indian reservations in Oklahoma
Territory,'' be, and hereby is, rescinded, and that in the reenrollment
of the said bill (H. R. 431) the following amendments be made, viz: * *
*
Mr. J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, having objected, the message and bill
were referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
3512. On March 3, 1904,\1\ in the Senate, the President pro tempore
laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the
United States; which was read:
To the Senate:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 1st instant
(the House of Representatives concurring), I return herewith Senate
bill No. 2323, entitled ``An act relating to ceded lands on the Fort
Hall Indian Reservation.''
Theodore Roosevelt.
White House, March 2, 1904.
Thereupon Mr. Fred T. Dubois, of Idaho, submitted the following
concurrent resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and
agreed to:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),
That the action of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and of
the President pro tempore of the Senate in signing the enrolled bill
(S. 2323) relating to ceded lands on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation
be rescinded, and that in the reenrollment of the bill the word
``thirty-five,'' in line 16 of the enrolled bill, be stricken out and
the word ``thirty-four'' be substituted therefor, so as to correctly
describe the range, inaccurately stated in the bill.
On March 4 \2\ the concurrent resolution was agreed to by the House,
Thereupon the Speaker canceled his signature.
3513. On March 22, 1904,\3\ the Speaker \4\ laid before the House the
following concurrent resolution relating to a bill returned by the
President of the United States on the request of the two Houses:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),
That the action of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and of
the President pro tempore of the Senate in signing the enrolled bill
(S. 2323) relating to ceded lands on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation
be rescinded, and that in the reenrollment of the bill all after
``namely,'' in line 13 of the enrolled bill, down to and including line
20 of said bill, be stricken out and the following inserted: ``Lot 4,
section 1 , township 7 south, range 34 east,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2740.
\2\ Journal, p. 386; Record, p. 2839.
\3\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3509.
\4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 3514
and the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter, section 18,
township 7 South, range 35 east, and the east half of the southeast
quarter of section 21, township 6 south, range 34 east, and which have
heretofore been appraised, shall be paid for at the said appraised
value at the time of and by the person making entry of the respective
tracts upon which such improvements are situated,'' so as to correctly
describe the range, inaccurately stated in the bill.
The House, by unanimous consent, considered the resolution and agreed
to it.
Thereupon the Speaker canceled his signature.
3514. On March 15, 1902,\1\ the following message was received:
To the House of Representatives:
In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of
the 14th instant (the Senate concurring), I return herewith the bill
(H. R. 5224) entitled ``An act for the relief of Edward Kershner.''
Theodore Roosevelt.
White House, March 15, 1902.
The message having been read, Mr. Alston G. Dayton, of West Virginia,
by unanimous consent, presented the following resolution, which was
agreed to:
Resolved, That the message of the President and the bill (H. R. 5224)
for the relief of Edward Kershner be transmitted to the Senate, with
the request that the Senate reconsider its action in passing said bill,
in order that an amendment may be made to the same by striking out the
word ``director'' and inserting in lieu thereof the word ``inspector.''
On the same day, in the Senate,\2\ the bill was, by unanimous
consent, considered, the vote whereby the Senate had passed the bill
was reconsidered, and the amendment suggested by the House was agreed
to. The bill was then passed as amended.
On March 17,\3\ the bill with the Senate amendment was taken up in
the House and the amendment was concurred in.
3515. On April 15, 1902,\4\ in the Senate, the President pro tempore
\5\ laid before the Senate the following message:
In the House of Representatives, April 14, 1902.
Resolved, That the bill (H. R. 11418) entitled ``A bill granting an
increase of pension to Hannah T. Knowles,'' with the accompanying
message of the President be transmitted to the Senate by the Clerk,
with the request that the Senate reconsider its action in passing the
bill, in order that the bill may be amended as follows:
Change the title so as to read: ``A bill granting a pension to Hannah
T. Knowles.''
Change the initial letter in name of the deceased sailor from ``T''
to ``M,'' so as to read: ``William M. Knowles.''
Mr. Jacob H. Gallinger, of New Hampshire, being recognized when the
message was read, said:
Mr. President, a few days ago a Senate bill was recalled from the
President precisely similar to this one. Understanding that after a
bill had been signed by the presiding officers of the two Houses of
Congress it could not be reconsidered and amended, I introduced a new
bill, which was passed through the Senate and sent to the other House.
I want now to ask the Chair whether, in his opinion, it is competent
for this body to reconsider and amend a bill that has received the
signatures of the presiding officers of the two Houses?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2876.
\2\ Record, p. 2845.
\3\ Record, p. 2926.
\4\ Record, p. 4141.
\5\ William P. Frye, of Maine, President pro tempore.
Sec. 3516
The President pro tempore said:
In the opinion of the Chair, the only remedy in such a case is the
introduction of a new bill.
Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Gallinger, the resolution of the House of
Representatives was laid on the table.
On April 7 \1\ the Senate considered a new bill (S. 5046) for the
promotion of anatomical science, etc., in the District of Columbia, in
place of a similar bill (S. 2291) which had been recalled from the
President after it had passed the two Houses.
3516. On January 31, 1901,\2\ the President of the United States, in
accordance with a request of the House and Senate, returned the bill
(H. R. 5048) entitled ``An act to confirm in trust to the city of
Albuquerque, in the Territory of New Mexico, the town of Albuquerque
grant, and for other purposes.''
On motion of Mr. John F. Lacey, of Iowa, by unanimous consent, the
vote on the passage of the bill was reconsidered.
Thereupon Mr. Pedro Perea, of New Mexico, offered this amendment:
At the end of section 1 strike out the period and place a semicolon
and add the following: ``and also reserving therefrom any private land
grants that may have been or may hereafter be confirmed by the Court of
Private Land Claims or other authority of the United States.''
The amendment was agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be
engrossed, read a third time, and passed.
On February 2 \3\ the bill, with the amendment of the House, was laid
before the Senate. A question was raised as to the procedure; and the
bill and amendment, after debate, were referred to the Committee on
Rules.
On February 4 \4\ the House, on motion of Mr. Perea, passed a
resolution requesting the Senate to return the bill to the House.
On February 6,\5\ the bill having been returned from the Senate, Mr.
Lacey, by unanimous consent, presented, and the House agreed to, this
resolution:
Resolved, That the vote whereby the House agreed to the amendment to
the bill (H. R. 5048) to confirm to the city of Albuquerque, in the
Territory of New Mexico, the town of Albuquerque land grant, and for
other purposes, be reconsidered, and that said amendment be withdrawn;
and that the bill be transmitted to the Senate.
On February 7,\6\ in the Senate, by unanimous consent, the votes
whereby the bill was ordered to be read a third time and passed were
reconsidered, and an amendment, identical with that first agreed to by
the House, was adopted. The amendment was then ordered to be engrossed,
and the bill was ordered to be read a third time and passed.
On February 8,\7\ on motion of Mr. Perea, the House concurred in the
Senate amendment.
The bill was then reenrolled, signed by Speaker and President pro
tempore, and transmitted to the President of the United States for
approval.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Record, p. 3754.
\2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1762; Journal, p.
178.
\3\ Record, pp. 1843-1845.
\4\ Journal, p. 191; Record, p. 1920.
\5\ Journal, p. 198; Record, p. 2046.
\6\ Record, p. 2054.
\7\ Journal, p. 211; Record, p. 2179.
Sec. 3517
3517. On February 5, 1901,\1\ the Speaker laid before the House a
message from the President of the United States, returning, in
accordance with the request of the House and Senate, the bill (H.R.
10761) entitled ``An act granting an increase of pension to Oliver H.
Cram.''
Thereupon, by unanimous consent, Mr. James W. Ryan, of Pennsylvania,
offered the following resolution:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That the Committee on Enrolled Bills of the two Houses be authorized
and directed to correct the enrolled bill of the House (H.R. 10761)
entitled ``An act granting an increase of pension to Oliver H. Cram,''
by striking out the words ``Oliver H. Cram'' wherever they occur in the
title and text and inserting ``Orville H. Cram.''
The resolution was agreed to.
3518. On August 16, 1888,\2\ the enrolled bill (H. R. 10060)
``prescribing the times for sales and for notice of sales of property
in the District of Columbia for overdue taxes'' was reported in House
and Senate and signed by the Speaker and President pro tempore.
On August 27 \3\ the House considered by unanimous consent, and
passed, a concurrent resolution requesting the President of the United
States to return the bill to the House. The Senate passed this
resolution in concurrence, and the same day the President returned the
bill to the House by a message,\4\ and both were referred to the
Committee for the District of Columbia.
On September 25,\5\ in the House, by unanimous consent, the votes on
the passage and engrossment and third reading were reconsidered, the
bill was amended, and as amended was again engrossed, read a third
time, and passed.
On September 26 \6\ the amendments were concurred in by the Senate.
On September 28 \7\ the bill was reported from the Committee on
Enrolled Bills as duly enrolled, and was signed by the Speaker, and on
October 1 \8\ the President pro tempore of the Senate signed the same.
The bill subsequently became a law by the President's signature.\9\
3519. An error in a bill that has gone to the President of the United
States may be corrected by a joint resolution.--A clerical error in a
bill that has gone to the President may be corrected by the passage of
a joint resolution. See joint resolution No. 31, reported from the
Committee on Enrolled Bills on May 13, 1846, and passed by the House
that day.\10\
On May 15,\11\ the President approved the resolution.
Also, on June 26, another.\12\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 194; Record, p.
1971.
\2\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Record, pp. 7614, 7642.
\3\ Record, pp. 7973, 7996; Journal, p. 2672.
\4\ Record, p. 8012; Journal, p. 2684.
\5\ Record, p. 8935; Journal, p. 2832.
\6\ Record, p. 8951; Senate Journal, p. 1466. The Senate Journal
shows that ``the additional amendments of the House'' were agreed to by
the Senate, and that this was the extent of the Senate's action.
\7\ Record, p. 9018.
\8\ Record, p. 9052.
\9\ Record, p. 9536.
\10\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 809.
\11\ Journal, p. 815.
\12\ Journal, p. 1006.