The Governor’s Veto

The Iowa City Republican takes us to task because we chose to allude to a measure wherein we thought Gov. Kirkwood had erred.  It takes the ground that the bill passed at the late session of the Legislature reducing the salaries of some of the State officers is unconstitutional, and that had Gov. Kirkwood signed the bill in the face of his oath to support the Constitution he would have been “a perjured villain.”  The Republican, in its sophistry, makes a majority of our State Legislature “perjured villains,” for they as well as the Governor are bound by an oath to support the Constitution, and in voting for the bill, according to this logic, have clearly violated their oaths.

The scarcity of money, the general depression of business and the enormous taxes to which we are to be subjected, we should think would be an incentive enough to any officer, who has the good of his constituents at heart, to aid any, and all measures looking towards economy.

The Republican classes us with the Dubuque Herald and other secession sheets.  Be this as it may, we are proud to say that we are no man’s tool, but shall ever speak out our honest sentiments when we think the good of the people is at stake.

The above article we clip from the Muscatine Journal of Thursday.  The Journal evades an answer to the position of the Republican, by suggesting that the members of the Legislature who voted for the bill had violated their oaths.  We desire to remind the Journal that it censured the Governor for vetoing the act in question, and the simple question at issue is, whether the Governor was right or wrong in vetoing the bill.

That the bill was manifestly unconstitutional, seems to us too clear to admit of a doubt.  Section 9 of the Constitution provides, that the salary of each Judge of the Supreme Court shall be $2,000 per annum until 1860, after which time they shall severally receive such compensation as the General Assembly may, by law prescribe; which compensation shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which they shall have been elected.

On the 22d of January, 1857, the Legislature passed an act fixing the annual salaries of the Supreme Judges at $2,000.  No act has ever been passed repealing that act.  The Constitution went into effect, we believe, on the 1st of Sept., 1857, and did not repeal this act, for it exactly accords with its provisions.  In March, 1858, the Legislature passed an act providing “that all acts which were in force at the time of the taking effect of the New Constitution, and which have not been repealed thereby, or by the acts of the General Assembly now (then 1858) in session, be and they are hereby re-enacted and revised.”  There was no act passed at that session repealing the act fixing the salaries at $2,000, and none has ever been passed since.  On the contrary, at every subsequent session of the Legislature, acts have been passed to appropriate money to pay the salaries of the Supreme Judges at $2,000 per annum.

Thus it will be seen that the act of 1857 has never been repealed, but on the contrary, was re-enacted in March, ’58, and is now the law.  That the Legislature had no power to reduce the salaries of the Supreme Judges during their present term of office, as was attempted by the bill vetoed by the Governor, is so clear “that a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.”  The simple question, with these facts before him, which the Governor had to decide was shall I obey the mandatory and solemn duty imposed on me by the Constitution, and veto this bill, or shall I sign it and willfully violate the Constitution and my own oath in a case so clear and unequivocal?  It is a shabby morality which would advocate the violation of the Constitution in so plan a case, for the paltry sum which would have been saved to the State if the bill had become law.

The House income tax bill, which would have taxed the State officers on their salaries about $150 each, and which would have brought into the State treasury a revenue of forty or fifty thousand dollars, was defeated in the Senate.  This was a just measure, and would have materially aided the finances of the Sate in this emergency, by compelling not only the State officers but also United States officers within this State, members of Congress and all others having incomes over $500, to contribute to the support of our financial burdens – a class, too, who now do not pay a single dollar on their incomes, and who can best afford to pay taxes.  No, friend Mahin, the responsibility, if any, for not aiding our tax payers, devolves upon those members of the Legislature who voted against the income tax bill of the House, and substituted for it this unconstitutional law.  We believe the Governor was right in vetoing the bill reducing the salaries of the Judges and that every right thinking man will approve the veto message.

– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Monday Morning, May 5, 1862, p. 2