Maude May has applied for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the Clerk of the House of Delegates of West Virginia, Keeper of the Rolls of the State, to malee and deliver to her, upon payment of the fees therefor, a certified copy of House Bill Ho. 342, entitled “An Act making appropriations of public money to pay general charges upon the Treasury,” and to include in such certified copy of that act tire following: “To pay to Mrs. Maude. May, executrix and devisee, widow of the late Attorney General, Clarke W. May, deceased, the salary for the balance of the year in which said Clarke W. May died, $2,080.00,” as one of the acts legally passed by the Legislature of the State of West Virginia and duly enrolled pursuant to law, and also to include in the printed copy of the Acts of the Legislature of 1909, to be published and issued by the Keeper of the Rolls according to law, House Bill Ho. 342, entitled as aforesaid, containing therein the item appropriating the sum of $2,080.00, as in the words and figures given above, as a valid subsisting act in law, duly passed by the Legislature of the State of West Virginia, according to the provisions of the Constitution. The application for such mandamus is resisted by respondent. He maintains that the item appropriating the sum of $2,080.00, in the words and figures recited above, was vetoed by the Governor. He, therefore, presents as his defense that such portion of the bill did not become a law and that he has no power to certify and publish it as such.
The Legislature which passed the bill in question met on Wednesday, the 13th day of January, 1909. It adjourned, by operation of the Constitution, wherein, it limits the session to for
Enrolled House Bill Ho. 342 was presented to the Governor, as attested by the printed journals of the two houses of the Legislature, on February 26, 1909. It remained in his. possession and control until Friday, the 5th day of March, 1909. At the hour of 8 o’clock A. M., on that day, it was filed in the office of Secretary of State. As presented to the Governor it contained the item of appropriation in favor of Mrs. May. As filed in the office of Secretary of State this item was stricken out by red ink, and there was endorsed on the bill, under the signature of the Governor and the date of March 3, 1909, his disapproval of all items indicated in the bill by red ink erasure, and his approval of all items not so indicated.
. The right of petitioner to the remedy by mandamus, invoked to compel the certification and delivery to her of a copy of an act passed by the Legislature and to compel the Keeper of the Rolls to promulgate the same with the other acts passed, has been determined and upheld by this Court in the cases of Capito, Sutherland and Reese, applying for similar writs, at this term. The opinion in those cases is, to further extent, controlling in this case. We need not inquire to what extent. A reference suffices. Aside from the questions therein determined this case involves but one. That question is: Can the Governor veto an item in the general appropriation bill after the adjournment of the Legislature?
The question is, we are of opinion, answered by the plain terms of the Constitution wherein it prescribes that which governs in such cases. Art. 7, sec. 15. This organic constitutional
The plain terms of this constitutional provision should prevail. A Constitution is made for the people and by the people. The interpretation that should be given it is that which reasonable minds, the great mass of the people themselves, would give it. “For as the Constitution does not derive its force from the convention which framed, but from the people who ratified it, the intent to' be derived at is that of the people, and it is not to be supposed that they have looked for any dark or obstruse meaning in the words employed, but rather that they have accepted them in the sense most obvious to the common understanding, and ratified the instrument in the belief that that was the sense designed to be conveyed.” Cooley’s Const. Lim. 81. The great Chief Justice Marshall, in the interpretation of a provision of the national Constitution, said: “As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most distinctly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convejr, the enlightened patriots who adopted it must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they said.” Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 188. There is no ambiguity in section 14, of Article 7. It is plain. It needs no construction. The terms used, in common everyday interpretation, can mean nothing but that the Governor disapproves a distinct item in an appropriation’bill by communicating his dissent, and his reasons therefor, to the house that originated the bill, so that house may set in motion, if it desire, after hearing the Governor’s reasons against the item, legislative action to re-pass the item by a majority of each house. The section plainly contemplates further legislative action, if the Legislature sees fit. Can there be such action after the Legislature has adjourned? The very fact that there cannot be determines that the Governor must express his disapproval before the adjournment.
It has been submitted in the argument that the Court will go far to uphold the veto power of the Governor. We have no power to change the Constitution, and, where that instrument is clear in its terms and of plain interpretation to any ordinary and reasonable mind, there is no room for construction, and it would be mischievous and unlawful to assume -it. If the absolute veto power .of the Governor was clearly expressed, we should declare its existence. Yet we have nothing to control us other than the plainly written language of the fundamental compact. In that instrument there is nothing to attach us to the idea that the veto power is so sacred that it should be made to prevail, in the face of plain words, against the supreme power of the people. The Governor is not vested with the absolute power of veto. The people have reserved unto themselves in every
It is insisted upon behalf of respondent that section 14, of Article 7, should be read and applied in connection with section 15 thereof; and that, therefore, the Governor had five clays after adjournment to exercise his disapproval by filing the bill with his objections in the office of the Secretary of State. If this were true, the item in the bill in question became a law; because, as we have held in the Capdto, Sutherland and Reese cases, it was not filed for more than five days after adjournment. But.we cannot read section 14 into section 15. They are distinct. If the' provision as to the five days after adjournment was intended to apply to, and be read into, section 15, then why the necessity of the latter section at all? The mere inclusion of a few words in section 14 would have made it fit an appropriation bill embracing distinct items. In reason, we must assume that there was a separate purpose for section 15, and that the section expresses that purpose. The only adoption that section 15 makes from the preceding section is, not as to that portion referring to disapproval within five days after adjournment, but as to the rules and limitations prescribed for the r.e-passing of a bill after the Governor has disapproved it. And, in that reference of the latter section to the former1 one, we observe that the promulgators of the Constitution, in effect, refer to section 14 as pertaining to bills other than the one provided for in section 15. The latter section says that the rules and limitations prescribed in the preceding section refer to "other bills.” If the rules and limitations in section 14 apply to "other bills,” does not the whole of section 14 apply to "other bills?” The clause of section 14 in reference to disapproval within five days after adjournment is not a rule or limitation for the re-passing of a bill. We seek in vain for any tie by which that clause can be connected with the provisions of section 15. There is no rule of construction by which it can be so applied. A distinct section and provision was made relative to executive disapproval of a bill making appropriation of money embracing
We have been cited to the journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1872 showing that section 14, as proposed to the convention, was adopted without change, and that section 15 was materially changed. It is-argued that the changes, which were made disclose interpretation to be given. It is needless to discuss these changes. There may be force in the argument made upon them. But, as we have hereinbefore said, the interpretation from the language of the provision is plain. The rule which permits a reference to the proceedings of the convention applies only where the meaning of the constitutional provision is doubtful. It cannot, it need not, apply here. Cooley’s Const. Lim. 80.
On behalf of respondent, it is maintained, pursuant to allegations of his answer, that it has been the custom of the executive branch of the state government to approve general appropriation bills, or to disapprove some items therein, within five days after an adjournment of the Legislature, and that such action of the executive department has never been questioned. Such custom, if it has existed as alleged, has been directly contrary to the constitutional provision. No affirmative approval of a general appropriation bill is required, and no disapproval of such bill, or any item therein, is effective, if expressed after adjournment. The rule of contemporaneous or practical construction is sought to be' invoked. We are' cited to Lewis’s Sutherland on Statutory Construction, section 472, et seq. This celebrated authority does not justify the position, nor does any authority, in this case. The rule applies only where there is ambiguity and doubt. As said at section 473, in the work just mentioned: “Long usage is of no avail against
It is further insisted that since the general appropriation bill was passed during the last hours of the session, the Governor. Is denied time for consideration, unless the provision for disapproval of a bill after adjournment is made to apply. The legislative journals show that immediately before adjournment the Governor stated to a joint committee that waited upon him that he had no further communication to malee to either house. This committee made such report. Must it not be presumed that the Legislature inferred from this that the general appropriation bill was approved? The Governor could have made reply to this committee that he had been given no time for consideration of the appropriation bill. It must be assumed, in reason, fairness, and a recognition of statesmanship, that the Legislature would then have provided for the time that the spirit of the Constitution intends that the Governor shall have. That body certainly would have corrected its fault in postponing the passage of this most vital bill to such late hour of the session. If the situation warranted it, he could have requested that the committee report to the Legislature that if the session was not extended to give him such time he must veto the ■bill as a whole. He had full power to convene the body the next day in extraordinary session, limiting that session to the consideration of appropriations only. By such action the Leg-
There have been addressed to the Court considerations relating to the merit of the item in question, to the propriety of the alleged veto, and to the effect of the items sought to be" vetoed upon the amount of the public revenue available for expenditure. With these questions, this Court has nothing whatever to do. Let the bill, or the item involved in this ease, be good or bad, we can concern ourselves with nothing but the question: Is it the legislative will ? We Can say it 'is legislation or not legislation, as the case may legally appear; but it is not for us to say that it is good or bad legislation. The policy and propriety of the law rest wholly with the legislative department, subject to the restricted power of disapproval given to the Governor, if exercised by him in proper time.
It appearing that the Governor did not disapprove the item of House Bill Ho. 342, making the appropriation to petitioner, within the time prescribed by the Constitution, and in the manner therein directed, the writ will be awarded.
Peremptory Writ Awarded.