Hamilton v. State ex rel. Wells

Stone, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. To an application for a mandamus against William T. Hamilton, Governor of Maryland, directing him to deposit a certain bill, which had passed the General Assembly, in the office of the clerk of the Court of Appeals, and which bill the petition claimed was a law, because it was presented to the Governor more than six days before the final adjournment of the Legislature, but had neither been ²⁷ vetoed nor signed by him, tbe Governor interposed several objections. One was that the bill had not been presented to him personally, until within the period of six days before the final adjournment of the Legislature, although it was left in the Executive Chamber more than six days before the adjournment. Another objection urged by him is that the bill was never at any time sealed with the Great Seal of the State, and that until that was done he was not required by the Constitution either to approve or to veto, and in fact was not bound to consider the bill at all.

The first of these objections raises the distinct question of the necessity of a personal 'presentation of a bill to the Governor, before he can be required to consider it; or whether a proper delivery in the Executive Chamber at Annapolis, although the Governor may be absent therefrom at the time, is sufficient. This is a very important question, but one which we do not mean now to decide, because the determination of that question is not necessary to the decision of this case, and because there is a wide and irreconcilable difference of opinion among the different members of the Court on that point. The second objection raises the question whether, in any event, a bill should not be sealed with the Great Seal before its presentation to the Governor, whether such presentation be a personal one or not; that is, whether or not it is the constitutional duty of the Governor to consider, for the purpose either of approval or veto, any bill presented to him without its being so sealed ? On this question the members of the Court before whom this case has been re-argued, are unanimous.

It appears from the answer of the respondent in this case, his positive testimony, and from an inspection of the bill itself made by the Court below, that it was not at the time of presentation, and was not at the time of the trial below sealed with the Great Seal. ²⁸ The 30th section of Art. 3, of the Constitution, uses this unequivocal language: “Every hill, when passed by the