Vermont Bar Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2 Vermont Bar Journal, Fall 2018, Vol. 44, No. 3 | Page 17

www.vtbar.org
had signed on the first page of the bill, but
not at the end, where it mattered, so Pin-
gree erased his signature and returned it to
the legislature. Later, after the Speaker and
President signed the last page and forward-
ed the bill again to the Governor, “in the hur-
ry of the last hours of the session it was sent
to the office of the secretary of state without
being clerically completed on my part. I in-
tended to have replaced my signature at the
end of the bill before it was sent to the secre-
tary of state; but, after the session was final-
ly adjourned, my attention was called to this
bill, and the fact that I had not done so; and
some time in March, 1885, while at Montpe-
lier, I replaced my signature in regular form
at the end of the bill, and wrote the words,
‘Approved November 25, 1884.’”  When the
act was challenged in 1888, the Supreme
Court treated it as a valid act of legislation
in 1888, concluding “That which took place
afterwards did not annul this enactment. It
was not even so intended if the power ex-
isted. The governor did not attempt to with-
draw his approval. The place of signing was
as effectual as though it had been at the end
of the bill; the fact appearing that it was in-
tended as a signing and approval of the en-
tire bill.” 31
Governors vetoed bills occasionally during
the remainder of the nineteenth century, and
in spite of the fact that the bills had been en-
acted by majorities in the House and Senate,
the vetoes were all sustained, with the two
exceptions, in 1888 and 1892. These vetoes
were not controversial. But then, at the dawn
of the twentieth century, Governor William
Stickney vetoed a bill relating to the Central
Vermont Railroad. 32
ernor Carlos Coolidge, for example, vetoed
an amendment to the charter of the National
Life Insurance Company in 1848 for the same
reasons Governor Jennison had vetoed the
Memphremagog Literary and Theological
Seminary bill in 1839, that there was no ex-
press reservation of right to alter or amend it
in the future. When the legislature returned
in 1849, it passed a corrective bill, which the
Governor signed into law. 23 The veto, its sus-
taining, and subsequent repair in a new law
that meets the executive’s objections, is the
reflection of a dialogue between the branch-
es. In recent years, the Governor has issued
warnings that bills in their present state will
be vetoed, and the corrections have been
made rendering a veto unnecessary.
The role of the modern Legislative Coun-
cil has to be appreciated, in avoiding mis-
takes and misunderstandings. 24 In 1858,
Governor Hiland Hall vetoed an act relating
to the Vermont and Canada Railroad Com-
pany, explaining, gracefully, that he had just
signed another act on the same subject, with
a slightly different timetable, and the sec-
ond bill was a redundancy. 25 Governor John
B. Page vetoed the bill incorporating the
Green Mountain Quarrying and Manufactur-
ing Company in 1867, as it was the same bill
as one he signed the day before. 26 The bill
amending the jurisdiction of constables in
1868 was vetoed by Governor Peter T. Wash-
burn because it repealed the wrong chap-
ter of the General Statutes. 27 Poor drafting
caused Governor Washburn to reject a law
relating to the collection of taxes in 1869. 28
The legislature enacts bills which can be-
come laws. It also approves resolutions,
which usually represent merely opinions,
sympathies, and approvals, and are not
treated as law. In 1871, a joint resolution of
the House and Senate authorized the State
Treasurer to pay bonds as they became due
in coin, only if the bonds were issued be-
fore the enactment of the legal tender act
by Congress, legislation which reflected the
abandonment of the gold standard and al-
lowed payment in treasury notes (paper
money). Loyal C. Kellogg challenged the
Treasurer’s refusal to pay him in gold coin.
On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court re-
fused him relief, concluding that a joint res-
olution was unenforceable. The Vermont
Constitution provides that “No money shall
be drawn out of the treasury unless first ap-
propriated by act of legislation.” 29 But this
wasn’t legislation. The Governor, ruled the
Court, “is a co-ordinate branch of the gov-
ernment, and a necessary party to all ‘acts of
legislation.’” 30
Governor Samuel Pingree signed the bill
to incorporate the National Land & Loan
Company in 1884. In an affidavit provided to
the court when the corporation’s charter was
challenged, the Governor explained that af-
ter signing it, he noticed that the Speaker of
the House and the President of the Senate
The 1913 Constitutional Amendment
Stickney vetoed that bill because he be-
lieved it violated the Vermont Constitution
when it made the Central Vermont Railroad
responsible for claims against the Vermont
Central, the corporation that built the line
and then was lost to foreclosure. He be-
lieved it was a taking, in violation of Article
2 nd of the Vermont Constitution. The Gover-
nor did not name the article in his address,
but his intent was clear.
The legislature reconsidered the bill and
reenacted it. 33 This infuriated one newspaper
editor. The St. Albans Messenger charged
the Assembly with assuming “a practical dic-
tatorship that destroys the balance of pow-
er,” reducing the Governor’s role to that of
a “rubber stamp.” 34 The Messenger contin-
ued to berate the treatment of the veto as
an “act of defiance of the general assem-
bly and the rejected legislation is invariably
passed over with derisive laughter.” What
was “designed as a check upon fraudulent
or ill-considered legislation that experience
shows can frequently be railroaded through
a legislative body,” was not respected. 35 “A
THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • FALL 2018
17