State v. Town of S. Norwalk

• Citation: 77 Conn. 257,58 A. 759
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 12 August 1904
• Parties: STATE ex rel. TOWN OF NORWALK v. TOWN OF SOUTH NORWALK et al. SAME v. TOWN OF SOUTH NORWALK.

58 A. 759

77 Conn. 257

STATE ex rel. TOWN OF NORWALK

v. TOWN OF SOUTH NORWALK et al.

SAME

v. TOWN OF SOUTH NORWALK.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Aug. 12, 1904.

Case Reserved from Superior Court, Fairheld County; Alberto T. Roraback, Judge.

Separate proceedings in quo warranto by the state, at the relation of the town of Norwalk, against the town of South Norwalk, and against the same defendant and others. The cases were reported to a committee, and their report found true, and reserved for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors.

These two cases were argued together. Each was an information by the state's attorney for Fairfield county, in the nature of a quo warranto. No. 1 was brought on the relation of a citizen of the city of South Norwalk. The defendants were "the claimed town of South Norwalk," and sundry inhabitants of territory now or formerly part of the town of Norwalk, and within the claimed bounds of said claimed town, and who claimed to hold offices in said claimed town, and who, together with the other inhabitants of said territory, who, it was alleged, were too numerous to be made parties defendant, were claiming to constitute and be such claimed town. No. 8 was brought on the relation of the town of Norwalk against the "pretended town of South Norwalk," and alleged that it and the inhabitants of a certain part of the town of Norwalk claimed to be a town by the name of South Norwalk, and to have all the privileges of a town lawfully incorporated. The information in No. 1 stated this case: On April 1, 1903, a joint resolution, a copy of which was annexed, incorporating the town of South Norwalk, originating in the House, and which had been passed by both houses of the General Assembly, was presented, duly engrossed and signed, to the Governor. On Thursday, April 2d, the House of Representatives adjourned to Tuesday, April 7th, and was in session on April 7th and 8th. On April 8th the Governor returned the resolution, without his signature, and with his objections thereto, to the House of Representatives. On April 9th the House reconsidered it, and subsequently, it having been again put to vote, it was lost. Nevertheless the inhabitants of the territory embraced in the resolution proceeded on October 1, 1903, to call a meeting of the pretended town of South Norwalk, at which town officers were elected for the ensuing year, which pretended offices the individuals made defendants are exercising and usurping under color of such election. To this information the defendants demurred, and the questions arising on the demurrer were reserved for the advice of this court, in which a stipulation was afterwards filed to the effect that the cause should be disposed of in connection and conformity with the disposition made of No. 8, and in view of the facts found in that action. The Information in No. 8 stated no color for the usurpation charged, but by plea, replication, and rejoinder, the facts stated in the preceding information were, with others, brought upon the record. This case was referred to a committee, and, their report having been accepted and found true, reserved for the advice of this court.

Levi Warner, Lewis Sperry, and Elmore S. Banks, for relator.

Henry Stoddard, Edward D. Robbins, and John H. Light, for respondents.

BALDWIN, J. (after stating the facts). These causes hinge upon the true meaning of article 4, § 12, of the Constitution of this state, which reads as follows: "Every bill which shall have passed both houses of the General Assembly, shall be presented to the Governor. If he approves, he shall sign and transmit it to the Secretary, but if not, he shall return it to the house in which it originated, with his objections, which shall be entered on the journals of the house; who shall proceed to reconsider the bill. If after such reconsideration, that house shall again pass it, it shall be sent, with the objections, to the other house, which shall also reconsider it. If approved, it shall become a law. But in such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays; and the names of the members voting for and against the bill, shall be entered on the journals of each house respectively. If the bill shall not be returned by the Governor within three 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 General Assembly, by their adjournment, prevents its return, in which case it shall not be a law." Was the bill for the joint resolution incorporating the town of South Norwalk returned by the Governor to the House of Representatives within three days, Sundays excepted, after it was presented to him? If not, it became a law, and there was good warrant for the incorporation of the town of South Norwalk. The commencement of this period of not exceeding three days given by the Constitution to the Governor for the consideration of every bill which has been duly passed by both houses is certain. It begins when the bill is presented to him. It cannot be deemed to have been presented to him until it has been in some way put into his custody, or into that of some one properly representing him, in such a manner that he has a reasonable ofportunity to inspect and consider it. Opinion of the Justices, 99 Mass. 630. Due provision was made shortly after the adoption of the Constitution for such attendance on "the Governor, or the person administering the office of Governor," as might serve to secure his proper representation at the executive offices during the sessions of the General Assembly. Pub. Acts 1819, p. 358, c. 19; Revision 1821, p. 258; Gen. St. 1902, § 68. In like manner, a bill which he does not approve cannot be deemed to have been returned by the Governor until he, or some one properly acting in his behalf, has put it out of his custody into that of the house in which it originated, or of some one properly acting in its behalf, in such a manner that there is a reasonable opportunity given for that house to become apprised of his objections and proceed to a reconsideration.

We take judicial notice of the fact that, during the entire history of the colony and state of Connecticut, it has been the custom of the Governor to be at the seat of government during the sessions of the General Assembly; and the report of the committee in No. 8 shows that since the creation of the office of executive secretary, in 1819, the invariable practice, in returning a bill, has been to return it by his hand for delivery in open house to the proper officer. The orderly conduct of public business requires that, in some open and visible manner, the custody of a bill. the reconsideration of which is desired by the Governor, should pass from him to the house where it originated. It is of the first importance that the people should know to what law they are subject. In the case of every unsigned bill, it must be the intent of the Constitution that they should have some certain means of knowledge as to whether it has been returned for reconsideration, or not, within the time limited for that purpose, for, if not so returned, it is a law. Such means of knowledge, when a bill is returned, can only exist if this is so done that both the fact and the date of the return are readily ascertainable. The adjournment of the house...