Casey v. Dadman
| Decision Date | 03 April 1906 |
| Citation | 191 Mass. 370,77 N.E. 717 |
| Parties | CASEY v. DADMAN et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John W. McEvoy, for plaintiff.
Jas. G. Hill, for defendants.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari by the mayor of the city of Lowell against the city clerk of that cityseeking to have a certain joint order of the city council of that city, redistricting the city into a new division of wards, declared illegal. The case was heard by a single justice of this court, who ordered a decree to be entered dismissing the petition, and, at the request of the petitioner, reported the case for our consideration.
No question is made as to the proper passing of the order by the city council. The mayor attempted to veto the order, and the only question is whether the veto had any force or effect. The veto in question was dated April 13, 1905, and was addressed to the city council of the city of Lowell, and signed by the mayor. It was in these words: 'I herewith return without my approval joint order entitled 'Providing for a new division of the territory of the city of Lowell into wards.” By the Rev. Laws, c. 26, § 9, the mayor was required, if he disapproved of the order to return it, 'with his objections in writing.' The so-called 'veto' contained no statement of objections, and was of no effect. The language of the Constitution of the United States and of this commonwealth is the same in substance as that in the statute above cited. Const. U.S. art. 1, § 7; Const. Mass. pt. 2, art. 2, c. 1, § 1. The reason why it is necessary that the objections should be stated is plain. It is that the body passing the order should have an opportunity to weigh and consider the objections, and determine whether it is right or wrong. Harpending v. Haight, 39 Cal. 189, 199, 2 Am. Rep. 432; Truesdale v. Rochester, 33 Hun (N. Y.) 574, 576; People v. Bowen, 21 N.Y. 517, 521 et seq. In this country the absolute veto is unknown; the qualified or limited veto is all an executive has. Harpending v. Haight, 39 Cal. 189, 201, 2 Am. Rep. 432; People v. Board of Councilmen (Super. Buff.) 20 N.Y.S. 51, 52; Colley, Const, Lim. 20 N.Y.S. 51, 52; Cooley, Const. Lim. the mayor to return an absolute veto was of no effect.
Petition denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prescott v. Sec'y of Commonwealth
...v. McCollum, 179 Ark. 837, 840, 18 S.W.2d 359;Payne v. Graham, 118 Me. 251, 107 A. 709, 7 A.L.R. 516. See, also, Mayor of Lowell v. Dadman, 191 Mass. 370, 77 N.E. 717. No such case is presented. One purpose, at least, of this requirement is to place on record the grounds of the Governor's a......
-
Jones v. Rockefeller, s. 15783
...of the power of veto by the Governor.154 W.Va. at 262, 175 S.E.2d at 178.11 In a related area of the law, a mayor in Casey v. Dadman, 191 Mass. 370, 77 N.E. 717 (1906), was required, if he disapproved of a particular order by the city council, to return the order "with his objections in wri......
-
Opinion of Justices to Senate
..."(i)n this country the absolute veto is unknown; the qualified or limited veto is all an executive has ..." Mayor of Lowell v. Dadman, 191 Mass. 370, 371, 77 N.E. 717 (1906), this statement simply describes a general state of affairs, and does not lay down a rule of constitutional law. "Whe......
-
Prescott v. Secretary of Commonwealth
...as a declaration of an emergency. See Jumper v. McCollum, 179 Ark. 837, 840; Payne v. Graham, 118 Maine, 251. See also Mayor of Lowell v. Dadman, 191 Mass. 370 . No case is presented. One purpose, at least, of this requirement is to place on record the grounds of the Governor's action for t......