REPOET 
OF THE 
BOARD OF CENSORS 
TO THE 
MAINE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 
AT ITS 
THIRTY-FIFTH ANNUAL MEETING 
HELD AT 
PORTLAND, June 14, 1887:— 
CONTAINING THE 
COMMITTEE’S REPORT 
ON THE 
STATUS OF THE REGISTRATION ACT. 
PORTLAND: 
South worth Bros., Printers . 
1887. CONTEXTS. 
Page 
Censors’ Report. 1 
President Walker’s Letter. 1 
Appointment op Committee. .... 3 
Committee’s Report. 5 
Committee’s First Letter to Gov. Bodwell. - 5 
Gov. Bodwell’s First Letter to the Committee - 7 
Committee’s Second Letter to Gov. Bodwell. - 8 
Gov. Bodwell’s Statement (Enclosure A) - - 10 
State Records, how Mutilated (Enclosure B) - 11 
Gov. Bodwell’s Second Letter to the Committee. - 12 
Committee’s Third Letter to Gov. Bodwell. - 13 
Dr. Bennett’s Letter to Gov. Bodwell. - - - 14 
Senator Sleeper’s Statement. - - - - 15 
Fac-Simile of Mutilated Record. - - - - 22 
Requirements op the Constitution and op the Law. - 23 
Statement op Facts proved and Consequences. - 24 
Cooley on Constitutional Limitations. - - 31 
Decision of Supreme Court of Illinois. - 32 
Conclusion. 38 Report of the Board of Censors 
IN REFERENCE TO 
THE REGISTRATION ACT:- 
ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF MAINE, 
March 17, 1887, 
AND APPROVED BY GOV. BODWELL ON THE SAME DAY. 
[But Afterwards Recalled by Him from the Office 
of the Secretary of State, and Vetoed( ?).] 
To the Maine Medical Association :— 
The undersigned, Censors of the Association, beg leave to 
report 
That on the twenty-third day of March last the following 
communication wras received from the President of the Associa- 
tion :— 
[Letter of President Walker to the Censors.] 
Thomaston, Me., March 22, 1887. 
To the Board of Censors of the Maine Medical Association:— 
Gentlemen :— 
I am informed of a state of facts from which 
I am led to believe that the Registration Bill for which we have 2 
contended so long in the interest of the public, became a law 
during the recent session of the Legislature. 
It appears that it passed through all the stages of Legisla- 
tion, that it received the approval of the Governor, and was 
deposited with the Secretary of State. 
I am advised by eminent legal counsel, that the Bill thus be- 
came a law, which the Governor had no legal right to withdraw 
his signature from, and that if lie subsequently obtained posses- 
sion of it, and erased or in any way obliterated his signature, 
it would not change the legal character of the Act, but would 
be a mutilation of a public record as much as such an erasure 
from any other law passed during the last session would be, if 
he should now commit such an act. 
I am advised that his subsequent sending of the Bill to the 
Senate, accompanied by a veto message, and the action of the 
Houses thereon, had no effect upon the law. 
An act of the Legislature cannot be thus repealed or destroyed. 
I take the liberty of asking your Board, as the proper organ 
of our Association, to investigate the facts, and if found as re- 
presented, to take such legal steps as you are advised would be 
competent, to enforce the law. 
Respectfully yours; 
J. B. Walker, 
Pres. Maine Medical Association. 
In compliance witlrthe foregoing suggestions of your Presi- 
dent, a meeting of this Board was held at Portland, March 31r 
at which several eminent physicians of that city and other 
places were present. 
After statements" by Senator Sleeper, of Androscoggin coun- 
ty, and suggestions from other physicians in attendance, it was 
unanimously voted;— 
That a committee be appointed, with authority to take such 
steps as to them may seem proper to ascertain the status of the 
Registration Act. 3 
Accordingly the following committee was appointed on the 
same day, viz :— 
Milton C. Wedgwood, M. D., of Lewiston, 
Henry P. Merrill, M. D., of Portland, 
Joseph L. Bennett, M. D., of Hiram, 
Frederick C. Thayer, M. D., of Waterville, 
Hon. Charles W. Goddard, of Portland, Professor of 
Medical Jurisprudence at Bowdoin College. 
The committee at once entered upon the performance of the 
duty assigned them, and the result of their labors is contained 
in the accompanying report, which is approved and indorsed by 
the undersigned. 
M. C. Wedgwood, 
Henry P. Merrill, 
J. L. Bennett, 
F. N. Wheeler. 
Portland, June 6, 1887. 5 
Report of the Committee 
UPON THE STATUS OF THE 
REGISTRATION ACT 
TO 
THE BOARD OF CENSORS. 
To the Board of Censors of the Maine Medical Association:— 
Gentlemen :— 
The undersigned, a committee appointed at 
a meeting of your Honorable Board held at Portland, March 31, 
1887, for the purpose of ascertaining the status of the act en- 
titled “An Act to regulate the Practice of Medicine,” enacted 
by the Legislature of Maine, March 17, 1887, have the honor 
to report 
That on the second day of April your committee, in pursu- 
ance of the duty assigned them, addressed to his Excellency 
the Governor, a communication, of which the following is a 
copy:— 
[The Committee’s First Letter to Governor Bodwell.] 
To His Excellency, the Honorable Joseph 11. Bodwell, the Gover- 
nor of the State of Maine:— 
Sir :—The undersigned, a committee appointed at a meeting 
of the Censors of the Maine Medical Association held at Port- 
land on the thirty-first day of March, A. D. 1887, have the 
honor to make known to your Excellency that current conflict- 6 
ing statements touching the bill or act entitled “An Act to 
regulate the Practice of Medicine/’ enacted by the Legislature 
March 17, 1887, are occasioning serious embarrassment to the 
medical profession throughout the State. 
That declarations appear to have been made in the Legisla- 
ture on the eve of the final adjournment tending to show that 
said bill or act had become a law of the State. 
That the question involved is one of deep interest and 
serious consequence to the medical profession of Maine, and its 
members are vitally concerned in reference thereto, because 
they are anxious to know their rights as well as their duties in 
the premises. 
And inasmuch as the facts on which the legal status of said 
bill or act depends would seem to be within the personal 
knowledge of your Excellency, the undersigned feel it their 
duty respectfully to request your Excellency to communicate to 
them all facts relative to the approval of said enactment, (if not 
in Your Excellency’s judgment incompatible with the public 
interest), in order that physicians and surgeons of the State 
and other citizens interested may be enabled to ascertain 
whether said bill or act is, or is not a public law of Maine and 
binding upon every citizen, and may lawfully and properly gov- 
ern their conduct accordingly. 
The undersigned have the honor to be, with high respect, 
* Your Excellency’s obedient servants, 
M. C. Wedgwood, 
H. P. Merrill, 
J. L. Bennett, 
F. C. Thayer, 
C. W. Goddard. 
Portland, April 2, 1887. 
That on the morning of Monday, April 4, a sub-committee, 
consisting of F. C. Thayer, of Waterville and C. W. Goddard, 
of Portland, proceeded to Augusta andjthen and there had the 
honor of an audience with the Governor, and presented said 
letter. 
After a careful perusal of the same,‘The Governor replied 
verbally that he would with pleasure communicate in writ- 
ing a full answer at an earlv day,’assuring them of his wil- 7 
lingness to put the committee in possession of all the facts so 
far as they were within his knowledge, having nothing to 
conceal or withhold. A conversation, (consisting mainly of 
voluntary statements by His Excellency of the arguments by 
which he was induced to recall the Act after his approval 
thereof and to reverse his action) ensued, at the close of which 
the Governor repeated his promise to send a full answer in 
writing at an early day. The sub-committee then took their 
leave, and with His Excellency’s consent visited the office of 
the Secretary of State for the purpose of looking at some of the 
books which are kept there. 
The Secretary of State, the Honorable Oromandal Smith, ex- 
hibited two books:—one known as “The Blotter,” was found 
in the basement, in the possession of James R. Milliken, 
Esquire, second clerk; the other, known as “The Register,” 
was in the main office, apparently in the immediate possession 
of the Secretary. 
A description of the present condition of said volumes, and 
an account of the mutilations and erasures which they have 
suffered will be found in “Enclosure B” accompanying your 
committee’s second letter to the Governor, (page 11.) 
And the undersigned further report that on Wednesday, April 
6, a letter was received from His Excellency, of which the 
following is a copy :— 
[Governor Bodwell’s First Letter to the Committee.] 
STATE OF MAINE. 
Executive Department, Augusta, April 5th, 1887. 
To the Honorable, Committee of the Censors of the Maine Medical 
Association:— 
Gentlemen.— 
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt 
of your communication of April 2d, touching the act of the 
last Legislature entitled “An Act to regulate the Practice of 
Medicine.” 8 
After mature consideration of the act in question I was 
unable to give it my approval, and consequently in the perform- 
ance of my constitutional duty, I returned it with my objec- 
tions to the house in which it originated. In personal confer- 
ence yesterday with the gentlemen of your committee who 
presented your communication, I stated to them frankly and in 
detail, all the facts within my knowledge, which seemed to 
either of us to bear upon my Veto of the act which you refer 
to. I think of nothing to add to the facts thus stated. 
I have the honor to be, 
Very respectfully, 
Joseph R. Bodwell Governor. 
After His Excellency’s promise to communicate a full reply 
in writing, it is to be regretted that lie should have been in- 
duced on the very next day to resort to the less satisfactory 
course of referring your committee to verbal statements made 
by him to the sub-committee who waited on him. Although 
His Excellency’s letter would justify and indeed seems'to call 
for a detailed statement of the entire conversation between 
him and the sub-committee during the personal conference to 
which he is pleased to make reference, such a relation would 
expand this report to an inconvenient length. For that rea- 
son (and others which will be appreciated by the Governor,) 
your committee are disposed at present to confine themselves 
to a reference to such portion thereof as is embodied in “En- 
closure A” accompanying their second letter to His Excellen- 
cy (page 10.) 
And your committee further report that on the eighteenth 
day of April they forwarded to the Governor a communication, 
of which the following is a copy:— 
[Second Letter to Governor Bodwell.] 
To His Excellency, the Honorable Joseph H. Bodwell, the Gover- 
nor of the State of Maine:— 
Sir :—The undersigned have the honor to acknowledge the 
receipt of your Excellency’s communication of April 5, in re- 9 
ply to that of the undersigned dated April 2, and presented 
personally, April 4. 
The undersigned avail themselves of this opportunity to ex- 
press their thanks for the promptness of your Excellency’s 
answer, and to enclose a copy of the same with a memorandum 
of such of the statements which your Excellency was pleased 
to make to a sub-committee of their number as are referred to 
in your Excellency’s communication and are necessary for a 
full understanding thereof. 
The undersigned respectfully represent to your Excellency 
that the enclosed papers, together with the accompanying 
statement of said sub-committee of the condition which certain 
important books kept in the office of the Secretary of State will 
be found to disclose, present an important question of law 
in which the undersigned and the entire medical profession of 
the State, as Avell as large numbers of other citizens are deeply 
interested, viz :—whether the act, entitled “An Act to regulate 
the Practice of Medicine,” enacted at the recent session of the 
Legislature, is or is not a public law of the State. 
The undersigned further beg leave to represent that they are 
not advised of any process of law or equity within their power 
whereby they can obtain a determination of said question. 
Wherefore they most respectfully request your Excellency in 
the exercise of that high prerogative conferred upon the Gover- 
nor by the Constitution, to require the Justices of the Honora- 
ble Supreme Judicial Court to give their opinion whether upon 
the facts contained in the enclosed papers and in such other 
documents as your Excellency may be pleased to submit to 
the Honorable Justices, said Act is or is not a public law of 
the State and binding upon every citizen. 
And the undersigned have the honor to be,with high respect, 
Your Excellency’s Obedient Servants, 
M. C. Wedgwood, 
H. P. Merrill, 
J. L. Bennett, 
F. C. Thayer, 
C. W. Goddard. 
Portland, April 12, 1887. 10 
[Enclosure A, accompanying Second Letter to Governor 
Bodwell.] 
Statements made by His Excellency the Governor, to F. C. Thayer 
and C. W. Goddard. 
The following statements were made to a sub-committee 
of the Committee appointed at a meeting of the Censors 
of the Maine Medical Association held at Portland, March 
31, 1887, for the purpose of ascertaining the legal status 
of a bill or act enacted at the recent session of the Leg- 
islature, entitled “An Act to regulate the Practice of Medicine,” 
in a personal conference between His Excellency the Governor 
and said sub-committee at the Executive Chamber at Augusta, 
April 4, 1887, at the time of their presentation to His Excel- 
lency of a communication from said Committee, dated April 2, 
1887, being the same statements referred to by His Excellency 
in his communication to said Committee, dated April 5, 1887. 
In said conference, His Excellency, the Governor, was pleas- 
ed to state as facts within his knowledge, touching said Act, 
“That the Act entitled “An Act to regulate the Practice of 
Medicine,” after its passage to be enacted by both branches of 
the Legislature was brought to the Executive Chamber in the 
forenoon of Thursday, March 1 7, the last day of the session, 
for his approval. 
That after considerable deliberation, he concluded to approve 
the bill, and accordingly signed the same and sent it down to 
the office of the Secretary of State, with several other acts, 
which he had also approved, and went to dinner. 
That on his return from dinner several gentlemen called to 
express their disapproval of and opposition to the act, and urged 
him to recall and veto it. That at first he objected, supposing 
that it was not within his constitutional power so to do, but 
that he was finally convinced to the contrary. 
That he then, about 3 in the afternoon, sent to the office of 
the Secretary of State, recalled the act, and cancelled his signa- 
ture by drawing two lines through it, as will appear by inspec- 
tion of the document now on the Senate files. That afterwards 
on the same day he sent his veto message to the Senate. 
And that he had no knowledge at the time of any erasures 
or mutilations of any books in the office of the Secretary of 
State. That ho had no intention of exceeding his constitution- 11 
al prerogative, and had neither concealed or attempted to con- 
ceal anything in reference thereto. 
[Enclosure B, accompanying Second Letter to Governor 
Bodwell.] 
Statement of the present condition of certain bools in the office of 
the Secretary of State at Augusta. 
At the office of the Secretary of State in the State House 
at Augusta are kept two books:—the pne known as “The 
Blotter,” and the other known as “The Register.” 
The Blotter has no title, but is an enumeration of bills which 
have been passed to be engrossed by both branches. Each 
page has four columns;—first, the number of the bill in fig- 
ures ;—second, its title;—third, the date of its passage to be 
engrossed ;—and fourth, the date of its approval by the Governor. 
Toward the latter part of the book, immediately after the 
line devoted to bill No. 424, appears the following line:—in 
the first column an erasure, apparently made by a sharp knife 
leaving the figures “425” dimly discernible;—in the second 
column, the Avords “An Act to regulate the Practice of Medi- 
cine ;”—in the third column, the words and figures “March 
16;”—in the fourth column, another similar erasure, leaving the 
words and figures “March 17” faintly visible. The number of 
the next bill on the following line is 425. No other erasure 
appears in the Blotter.* 
On the cover of the Register is a morocco-gilt title, “Titles 
of Acts” ; the book is a Register of Acts approved by the 
Governor. Its pages contain only three columns;—first, the 
number of the Act in figures;—second, its title ; third, the date 
of its approval.* 
Near the end of the Register, at the bottom of the left hand 
page, is the entry of Act No. 421, with its title and the date of 
its approval; this act, numbered in the Register 421, is the 
same act which is entered in the Blotter as bill 424. 
On the top of the succeeding right-hand page appears the 
entry of Act No. 422, with its title and the date of its approv- 
al : that act, numbered in the Register 422, is the same act 
which is entered without erasure in the Blotter as bill 425. 
Between the two entries 421 and 422 in the Register there is 
* See page 22. 12 
no erasure, neither is there any entry of the “Act to regulate 
the Practice of Medicine”; but there is evidence of the tearing 
out of a leaf, the mutilation of the Register revealing a narrow 
ragged margin close to the binding. 
It is apparent from inspection that the partially erased line 
in the Blotter originally read thus; “425—An Act to regulate 
the Practice of Medicine,—March 16,—March 17. '* 
And it would seem that upon one side of the leaf which has 
been torn from the Register or “Titles op Acts,” there must 
originally have been recorded at the top of the page the fol- 
lowing entry, “422—An act to regulate the Practice of Medicine 
—March 17.”t 
And that the entries were made in said books at the times 
which their respective dates import, at the Department of State, 
for the purpose of recording the fact that said bill was passed 
to be engrossed March 16, 1887, and that said act was approv- 
ed by the Governor March 17, 1887. 
And your committee further report that on the twenty-fifth 
day of April a second letter was received from the Governor, 
of which the following is a copy:— 
[Governor Bodwell’s Second Letter.] 
' STATE OF MAINE. 
Executive Department. Augusta, April 20th., 1887. 
To the Honorable, Committee of the Censors of the Maine Medieal 
Association. 
Gentlemen :— 
I have to acknowledge the receipt of your 
communication of April 13th., relative to an act entitled “An 
Act to regulate the Practice of Medicinealso the receipt of 
certain statements and papers accompanying such communica- 
tion. 
I could not assent in some important particulars to all the 
statements of fact and conclusions as understood and reported 
by your committee, but it is not material to dwell upon this, as, 
in the view which I take, the matters suggested in your commu- 
* For a representation of the mutilated entry in the “Blotter,” see 
page 22. 
f See page 22. 13 
nication do not give rise to such an “important question of 
law” and such a “solemn occasion,” as would alone under the 
language of the Constitution, warrant me in requiring the 
opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Court. 
I have the honor to be 
Very respectfully. 
Joseph R. Bodwell 
And your committee further report that on the second day 
of May they forwarded to the Governor a communication, of 
which the following is a copy:— 
[Third Letter to Governor Bodwell.] 
To His Excellency, the Honorable Joseph R. Bodwell, the Govern- 
or of the State of Maine: 
Sir :—The undersigned have the honor to acknowledge the 
receipt, (April 25) of Your Excellency’s communication of 
April 20, in reply to the request of the undersigned dated April 
12, and forwarded to Your Excellency April 18. 
The situation disclosed by Your Excellency’s statements of 
Your Excellency’s proceedings in reference to the act entitled 
“An Act to regulate the Practice of Medicine,” and by inspec- 
tion of the mutilations apparent in the books kept in the De- 
partment of State for the registration of bills and acts is be- 
lieved to be without precedent in the history of the State. 
Therefore the undersigned regret that the question necessari- 
ly created by such a condition of affairs, to wit:—whether said 
act is, or is not a public law of the State, is not, in Your Ex- 
cellency’s view, of sufficient importance to Warrant Your Ex- 
cellency in requiring the opinion of the Justices of the Supreme 
Judicial Court thereon, in accordance with the suggestion of 
the undersigned. 
The undersigned are confident that the medical profession in 
common with all good citizens throughout the State, without 
regard to their own views or wishes, would cheerfully have ac- 
cepted the opinion of the court thus obtained in one of the 
modes provided in the constitution, as an authoritative deter- 
mination of the law not only for the government of their own 
conduct but also as the conclusive guide to the Governor and 
council in the performance of their duties. In the absence of such authoritative determination, the un- 
dersigned are convinced by the statements made by Your Ex- 
cellency and the evidence afforded by the books aforesaid, that 
said act is a public law of Maine, and being deeply interested 
in its faithful execution, feel it their duty respectfully to request 
Your Excellency to appoint five suitable persons as members 
of the State Board of Medical Examination and Registration, 
according to the requirements of the third section of said act. 
And the undersigned have the honor to be, with high respect, 
Your Excellency’s obedient servants, 
M. C. Wedgwood, 
H. P. Merrill, 
F. C. Thayer, 
C. W. Goddard. 
Portland, April 30, 1887. 
And on the seventeenth day of May the following letter was 
forwarded to the Governor :— 
14 
[Dr. Bennett’s Letter to Gov. Bodwell.] 
To His Excellency, the Honorable Joseph 11. Bodwell, Governor 
of the State of Maine:— 
Sir :—Th§ undersigned, having been absent from the State 
for several weeks, avails himself of the earliest opportunity 
after his return to join in the request made by his associates 
to Your Excellency April 30. 
He has the honor earnestly to request Your Excellency to 
appoint the State Board of Medical Examination, as required 
by the third section of the Act “To regulate the Practice of 
Medicine.” 
The undersigned has the honor to be, 
Your Excellency’s obedient servant, 
J. L. Bennett. 
Hiram, May 17, 1887. 
And your committee report that no further communication 
has been received from the Governor. 
In addition to the verbal statements of the Govornor referred 
to by him in his communication of April 5, and the revelations 15 
of the mutilated books in the State Department (doubtless 
still apparent to any citizen on inspection), your committee 
have the honor to report the following evidence. 
[Statement by the Honorable Frank E. Sleeper, M. I)., 
Senator from Androscoggin.] 
Sabatis, May 9, 1887. 
Hon. C. W. Goddard, 
Hear Sir :— 
While in Portland last week I received 
from you in behalf of a committee appointed by the “Censors” 
of the “Maine Medical Association” a letter requesting me to 
furnish you a statement of facts within my knowledge in refer- 
ence to the so-called “Medical Registration Bill,” approved by 
Governor Bodwell last March. 
While at Portland my time was fully occupied with other 
matters, and since my return I have been too ill to write, which 
fact must account for delay. 
As a medical man I am perfectly willing to put your commit- 
tee in possession of any facts relative to this “Bill” which are 
not of too private or personal a character to be disclosed by 
me, for I believe it to be a matter in which all physicians, 
whether allopathic, homoeopathic, or eclectic, and all honorable 
and fair-minded citizens of this State without regard to politi- 
cal affiliations are, or should be, deeply interested. 
I will state the facts as briefly as I can, and they are sub- 
stantially these. 
A so-called “Medical Registration bill” was referred by the 
legislature of 1885 to that of 1887, and, after more or less 
consideration by the Judiciary Committee to which it was re- 
ferred, no one appearing from the Maine Medical Association 
or elsewhere in support of the bill, and it being generally un- 
derstood by the committee that the medical profession were not 
intending to press the matter this year, a report was accepted 
by both branches that “legislation1' was “inexpedient." 
Several members of each branch were much dissatisfied with 
so summary a disposition of the matter, and after consulting 
with several friends I gave notice in the Senate on March 3d 16 
that I intended to introduce in new form the same subject 
matter. 
I submitted the draft of a new bill to the inspection and 
criticism of professional friends, and after adopting some of 
their suggestions I introduced the bill in the Senate March 8th, 
and it was referred to the committee on Legal Affairs. That 
committee gave a hearing to parties interested on the evening 
of March 10th, and the next day, the 11th, reported the bill, 
and it was ordered to be printed under joint rules. It was 
taken from the table and received its first reading on March 
14, and on March 15 it passed the Senate to be engrossed, 
after full and able discussion, by a vote of 16 to 6, or almost 
3 to 1. 
The next day, March 16, after a sharp and spicy debate, the 
bill passed the House by the unexpectedly large vote of 89 to 
30. 
On the morning of March 17, the bill passed the House to be 
enacted and was immediately brought up to the Senate, where it 
also finally passed. In each branch it was signed by the pre- 
siding officer. The bill with several others, was then sent to the 
governor for his approval. 
Betwcon four and half-past four o’clock in the afternoon of 
the 17th, on my arrival at the State House I was informed by the 
governor’s private secretary that the governor was in his room 
and desired to see me. I immediately went to the Executive 
Chamber where I found him in conversation with Hr. Cushing 
of Turner. 
The governor informed me that he wished to talk with me in 
reference to the Medical Registration bill. He said that his 
previous talks with me about the bill, in which he had expressed 
himself as pleased with it, were before he had thoroughly ex- 
amined it. He said further that the bill with others had been 
brought to him before dinner, and that upon reading it careful- 
ly he had found some things which he did not like. 
Among other things that he mentioned was the suggestion that 
he thought it hard for a young man just graduated from a medical 
college and so poor that he hardly owned the shirt upon his 
back to be compelled to pay a fee of thirteen dollars. I informed 
the governor that he was in error in Ids interpretation of the 
bill, that the young man’s diploma exempted him from examina- 
tion, and he would only be required to pay three dollars for regis- 17 
tration, and that no young graduate would grumble at that. 
I also explained several other points of the bill to him. 
He then informed me that several prominent gentlemen had 
spoken to him in reference to the bill, and it was their opinion 
that the bill would prove to be a very mischievous one, and 
might cause a complete political overturn in the state. 
He also said that he had left the bill upon his table until the 
last moment before dinner, but remembering the strong vote, 
about three to one, by which it had passed both Senate and House 
he had decided to approve the bill and leave the responsibility 
of the law, if it worked badly, upon the Legislature. 
He further said that before he went to his dinner he signed 
the bill and sent it down, and it was now too late to do any- 
thing about it, but that if he had not done so he was of the 
opinion that he might be disposed to withhold his signature. 
The statement that it was “too late to do anything about it" 
he repeated several times, and at no time during that interview 
did he intimate to me any intention or power to withdraw his 
approval. 
During this conversation the governor mentioned to me the 
names of several prominent gentlemen who were opposed to 
the bill, and informed me that it was feared that the matter 
“might get drawn into politics,” if allowed to go on. 
While at my hotel in the evening, previous to the evening 
session, I was informed by a friend that I had better be looking 
out for my bill as some underhand work was being done and 
he feared that the bill was to fare badly. I assured him that it was 
all right, as the governor himself had told me that he had 
“signed it and sent it down and that it was too late to do any- 
thing more.” 
He informed me that as a newspaper correspondent it was his 
business to gather news, and that hearing rumors that the bill was 
to be vetoed, he had visited the office where approvals were re- 
corded. He found that at first it had been entered as approved, 
but that at six o’clock, when he next saw the record, a pen mark 
had been drawn through the entry, which was upon the top of 
the right-hand page of the Register. I immediately went to the 
State House, arriving at a little before eight. I went to the 
room where the register, or a book which corresponds to a reg- 
ister, was kept, and asked the clerk in charge for it. Upon 
looking over the book I could not find any entry at all of a 18 
Registration Bill, and asked the clerk where I should find the 
entry of the governor’s approval of that bill. He informed me 
that the governor had not approved it. I told him that he was 
mistaken, as the governor himself had told me that he had 
signed it and sent it down. The clerk said that he knew noth- 
ing about it; that 1 could see for myself that there was no en- 
try there, etc. I asked him if any one else had had the book. 
He said no. I asked him if anyone else had access to the 
books to change them. He again said no. I told him that I 
could prove that as late as six o’clock the entry was there. 
He said that it was not, and then added that all entries 
were copied from the blotter. I then demanded to see the 
blotter. 
On examining the blotter I found at about the middle of a 
page, the entry “An Act to regulate the Practice of Medicine.” 
In the column “engrossed,” was the entry “March 16.” In 
the column “approved" there had been also an entry, but 
it was partially erased, evidently with a knife. I asked the 
clerk if he knew anything about that. He informed me that 
he did not. I then examined the register more closely and 
found where a leaf had been cut or torn out, and it was the 
page where the entry of the Registration bill would have been. 
I showed it to the clerk and asked him if he knew anything 
about that. He informed me that he did not! After showing 
the mutilations to several gentlemen present, I went directly to 
the governor’s room, and had a long conversation with him. 
I told him that rumors were afloat that he intended vetoing 
the bill. He said that he would like to talk with me about it, 
as he had not fully made up his mind. I called his attention 
to the fact that during our afternoon talk he had said repeated- 
ly that he had signed the bill and sent it down and that it was 
too late to do anything more about it. He said that such had 
been his impression, but that he was informed that he had a 
right to withdraw his approval, if he desired. I then called 
his attention to a bill presented by Mr. Wakefield, (Represen- 
tative from Bath,) who came to him after the bill had been 
passed and signed by him and told him that it was insufficient, 
etc., and that he then decided that the bill became a law when he 
signed it, and that it was too late; that in consequence Mr. 
Wakefield had been obliged to get through the Legislature a 
supplementary or new act, etc. The Governor then said that such had been his opinion, but 
that he was informed by certain Congressmen, whom he named, 
that he had a right to withdraw his signature at any time be- 
fore the bill had been reported to the Legislature as approved; 
that in Congress a bill does not become a law until approved 
by the President, sent to the Secretary of State, and by him 
reported back to Congress, etc. While we were discussing the 
matter, several other gentlemen came in, most of them anxious 
to save the bill. The governor said that the penalties were 
too severe. I offered to get through a supplementary bill, re- 
ducing them to anything that he thought just, although I assur- 
ed him that no excessive or unjust sentence would ever be im- 
posed under the act as it was. The governor said he thought 
that such an amendment as that would not do. He then asked 
me if I would be willing to have the date on which the bill should 
take effect changed to some time in January, 1889, after the 
next state election. 1 demurred to that at first, but afterwards 
joined with other friends of the bill present in consenting to 
it, to avoid further trouble with the governor. 
All the gentlemen in the governor’s room seemed to be 
friends of the bill, but several times during this interview the 
governor was called out by the Secretary of State into the ad- 
joining Council Chamber, where some at least of the opponents 
of the bill seemed to be gathered, and after each visit there, the 
governor returned with fresh charges against the bill. 
The governor finally told us that he would soon decide what 
he should do, and would either send in to me an amendment 
postponing the time at which the act should go into effect un- 
til about Jan. 15, 1889, or else that he would send in a veto 
message. 
I returned to the Senate Chamber, and in a few minutes the 
bill with a veto message accompanying came into the Senate 
where it failed of a passage over the veto. 
I think that it was on the ninth of April when I next saw 
the Governor, at which time I had a long conversation with 
him and fully discussed the present status of the bill. We 
agreed that eminent lawyers were divided in opinion as 
to the right or power of the Governor to veto a bill under 
such circumstances. The Governor mentioned that the matter 
would be likely to get into the courts, and asked me what I 
19 20 
intended to do about it. I told him that the matter was now 
in the hands of a committee, which would probably take such 
action as seemed best. He informed me that the committee had 
called upon him and that he had made a verbal statement, 
which the committee wished him to give in writing, but that he 
had not done so. He suggested that as there seemed to be 
some doubt about the veto, I should get a case into court for 
decision. 
I replied that the bill, after passing both Senate and House, 
had been sent to him for his approval, that he had approved it 
with full knowledge of what he was doing, by signing his name 
to it and sending it to the office of the Secretary of State, of 
which facts no denial had ever been made; that it remained 
there a longer or shorter time after being recorded in the blot- 
ter and in a book used as a record book; that in consequence 
myself and other friends of the bill, as well as many who were 
not originally favorable to it, considered it beyond the power 
of veto; that our opinion had been concurred in by so many 
eminent legal gentlemen as to establish beyond question a 
doubt at least of the legality of his veto; that I did not believe 
that the Governor of the State could have any desire to persist in 
a course the legality of which was in the slightest degree doubt- 
ful ; that he had the right to ask at any time of the Supreme 
Court Justices for an opinion as to the legality of any measure; 
that none of the friends of the bill had that right; and that in 
consideration of all the facts mentioned, I thought it his duty to 
submit to the court such a full and exact statement of facts in 
the case as might be agreed upon by him and the friends of 
the bill, and that the decision of the judges ought thus to be 
obtained as to whether or not the bill was now a statute law. 
The Governor assented to the reasonableness of the sugges- 
tion, and assured me that he had no desire or intention to do 
anything which was not strictly legal and right. He said 
furthermore that it was as much his interest as mine to know 
the law in such instances, and that if he asked the opinion of 
the Court,(which he intimated that he should do,) he should cer- 
tainly give all the facts so far as they could be ascertained. 
He added that after his return, (he was then I think on the 
way to Boston or New York) he would bring the subject to 
the attention of his Council, and, if thought favorably of, that he 
would ask the opinion of the Court. 21 
I have not seen the Governor since that time, and know of 
no further action upon the matter. 
As I have made my statement so much more lengthy than I 
intended, I will add nothing more except the hope that the com- 
mittee, or the Maine Medical Association may be able clearly 
to show that the Governor, having signed the bill with full in- 
tention to approve it, and having sent it out of his possession 
to the Secretary of State, its proper custodian, had no furth- 
er power in the case to recall or veto it, and that it is to-day a 
statute of our State. 
Yours respectfully, 
Frank E. Sleeper. 22 
REPRESENTATION 
of the first four entries upon one of the pages of the “Blotter — 
Acts” kept in the Department of State for the entry of en- 
grossed bills, showing the erasures in the third entry. The scale 
is reduced to one half the actual size. 
Chap 
Titles 
Eng 
Approved 
420 
An Act to extirpate conta- 
gious diseases among 
n o 
Cattle. 
Mar 16 
Mar 17 
424 
An Act relating to the 
Compensation of County 
Commissioners of the 
County of Sagadahoc 
Mar 16 
Mar 17 
An Act to regulate the 
practice of Medicine 
Mar 16 
t • #|| ; *• 
425 . 
An Act to amend Sections 
92, 95, 100 and 119 
of Chapter 47 of the 
R. S. relating to 
Vagrants. 
Mar. 16 
Mar 17 
The first page of “Blotter-Acts” is headed “ACTS. - 1887.”, 
and its several columns are headed as above. 
The first page of the “Register” or “Titles-Acts,” kept in the 
State Department for the entry of acts approved by the Gov- 
ernor, and from which a leaf has been torn or cut, is headed 
“ACTS. — 1887.”, and its several columns are headed 
“Chap - Approved - Titles". 
Note. In Enclosure B (pages 11 and 12) a slight error occurs in 
stating the order of the “Register” columns. 23 
[Requirements of the Constitution and of the Law.] 
The Constitution of Maine contains these provisions :— 
“The powers of this government shall be divided into three 
distinct departments, the Legislative, Executive and Judicial. 
No person or persons, belonging to one of these departments, 
shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either 
of the others, except in the cases herein expressly directed 
or permitted.” (Art. Ill, Secs. 1, 2.) 
“The laws shall not be suspended but by the Legislature or 
its authority.” (Art. I, Sec. 13.) 
“He” (the governor) “shall take care that the laws be faith- 
fully executed.” (Art. V, Part First, Sec. 12.) 
“They” (the Justices of the Supreme Court) “shall be obliged 
to give their opinion upon important questions of law, and 
upon solemn occasions, when required by the Governor, Coun- 
cil, Senate, or House of Representatives.” (Art. VI, Sec. 3.) 
“Every bill or resolution having the force of law, to which 
the concurrence of both houses may be necessary, except on a 
question of adjournment, which shall have passed both houses, 
shall be presented to the Governor, and if he approve, he shall 
sign it; if not, he shall return it with his objections to the 
house, in which it shall have originated, which shall enter the 
objections at large on its journals, and proceed to reconsider 
it. If after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that house shall 
agree to pass it, it shall be sent together with the objections, to 
the other house, by which it shall be reconsidered, and, if ap- 
proved by two-thirds of that house, it shall have the same ef- 
fect, as if it had been signed by the Governor; but in all such 
cases, the votes of both houses shall be taken by yeas and nays, 
and the names of the persons, voting for and against the bill or 
resolution, shall be entered on the journals of both houses re- 
spectively. If the bill or resolution shall not be returned by 
the Governor within five days, (Sundays excepted) after it shall 
have been presented to him, it shall have the same force and 
effect, as if he had signed it, unless the Legislature, by their 
adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall have such 
force and effect, unless returned within three days after their 
next meeting.” (Art. IV, Part Third, Sec. 2.) 24 
“The records of the State shall be kept in the office of the 
Secretary,” (of State) “who may appoint his deputies, for whose 
conduct he shall be accountable.” (Art. Y, Part Third, Sec. 2.) 
The law provides as follows:— 
“When a public act is approved by the governor, the secre- 
tary of state shall give written notice thereof to the presiding 
officers of the senate and house, describing it by its title, and 
the date of its approval, which shall be entered on the journal 
of each house.” (Revised Statutes, chap. 1, sec. 4.) 
[Statement of Facts Proved, and Consequences.] 
In obedience to the Constitution, the Registration Act, hav- 
ing finally passed both Houses, was presented to Governor Bod- 
well before dinner on Thursday, March 17. Thereupon the 
Constitution, declared to be the supreme law of the State, 
(Art. X, Sec. 4) and which every state officer is sworn to sup- 
port, (Art. IX, Sec. 1) imposed a grave duty upon the Govern- 
or. That duty was, within five days to approve the bill or to 
return it with his objections. Five days were given him for 
deliberation, but he was at liberty to act at once, if he pleased. 
Nothing can be plainer. How was his disapproval to be man- 
ifested ? 
By returning the bill to the House in which it originated. 
That official act of disapproval he was at liberty to perform 
at any moment during five days after the bill was presented to 
him, (unless prevented by adjournment of the Legislature.) 
On the other hand how was he to manifest his approval? 
Simply, by signing the bill. Such and no other is the ex- 
press language of the Constitution: “and if he approve, he 
shall sign it.” That official act of approval he was at liberty to 
perform at any moment after the bill was presented, although 
he was allowed Jive days, if he chose to take that, time, provided 
the Legislature continued so long in session. 25 
As matter of fact, how long did the Governor take for de- 
liberation ? To use his own language, “After considerable de- 
liberation, I concluded to approve the bill, and accordingly I 
signed it and sent it down to the office of the Secretary of 
State, with several other acts which I had approved, and went 
to dinner.”* “He also said that he had left the bill upon his 
table until the last moment before dinner.”t According to the 
Governor’s own acknowledgment, he did not act hastily, but af- 
ter considerable deliberation he concluded to approve the bill, and 
accordingly signed it. 
Can there be any doubt that he thereby fulfilled the require- 
ment of the Constitution ? Did anything remain for him to 
perform ? Certainly nothing can be gathered or inferred from 
the language of the Constitution, to warrant such an assertion. 
But suppose that we travel outside of the Constitution and seek 
by some remote analogy to private deeds or wills to import the 
idea of delivery or publication. Even if such a requirement 
were conceded, it was fully performed, for the Governor admits 
that after having signed the bill, “he sent it down to the office 
of the Secretary of State, with several other acts which he had 
also approved, and went to dinner.” Here we find every con- 
ceivable element of final, decisive, irrevocable executive action 
under the Constitution; deliberation, approval, signature, deliv- 
ery to an officer elected by the Legislature and independent of 
the Governor, and publication to the world. 
If anything remained in the power of the Governor to do 
with that bill to make it a public law of the State, what was it? 
By the deliberate, voluntary, official action of the Governor, the 
act had passed out of his possession, custody and control into 
that of another high public functionary; out of the Executive 
Chamber into the State Department and into the office of the 
Secretary of State, where that officer is required by law to pre- 
* Governor’s statement to sub-committee, page 10. 
f Governor’s statement to Senator Sleeper, page 17. 26 
serve it. (R. S., c. 2, § 35) The power conferred by the 
Constitution had been exercised, the duty imposed upon the 
Governor had been performed; the executive authority over 
the act had been exhausted :—in the fullest sense of the term, 
it was “functus officio.” In the words of Judge Cooley, “The 
bill had passed beyond his control by the constitutional and 
customary mode of legislation,” for “he had filed the bill with 
the Secretary of State with his approval subscribed.” 
The bill had passed regularly through every successive stage 
of legislation, hal received the executive sanction, had reached 
its ultimate destination, its final resting-place, and had been 
duly and regularly enrolled among the public laws of the State. 
Accordingly it was registered in the Registry, or “Titles 
of Acts”as “Act 422”, with the date of its approval by the 
Governor; and the date of its approval was also entered in the 
“Blotter.” 
Thereupon it became the right of any citizen interested to 
demand of the Secretary of State a certified copy of the act, 
and it would have been the duty of that officer to furnish a 
copy o4 the same certified by him as a law of the State under 
the seal of the State, on tender of one dollar for the certifi- 
cate and twelve cents a page for the copy. (R. S.,c. 116, § 20.) 
Whether any such certificate was in fact demanded and is- 
sued, your committee is not informed. 
However that may be, it became the plain duty of the Secre- 
tary of State to notify the President of the Senate and the 
Speaker of the House, as soon as he had knowledge of the 
Governor’s approval; and of that fact the entries in the Regis- 
ter and Blotter are conclusive evidence. (R. S., c. 1, § 4.) 
Your committee find no evidence that the Secretary of State 
ever attempted to comply with this requirement of law except 
on a single occasion during the session. From “House print, 
ed Document No. 192” it appears that on the twenty-sixth day 
of February, 1887, he communicated a list of approved public 27 
and private acts and resolves, with the respective dates of ap- 
proval. The list includes 37 public acts approved between Jan- 
uary 25 and February 23. No further notice of the approval 
of any act seems to have been given by the Secretary of State, 
although no less than 113 other public acts were approved dur- 
ing the remaining 19 days of the session. 
But it is not easy to see how a neglect of duty on the part 
of the Secretary of State, an independent public officer elected 
by the Legislature and whose functions are defined by the Con- 
stitution and the law and not by the Governor, can operate to 
extend or enlarge the Governor’s constitutional power; any 
more than a prompt compliance with the statute and an im- 
mediate performance of his official duty by the Secretary could 
abridge or limit the gubernatorial prerogative. He must be 
a bold expounder of the Constitution and the law who would 
venture to assert that if the Secretary of State had in fact 
promptly obeyed the peremptory command of the first page of 
the Revised Statutes, and given to the presiding officers of the 
Legislature the written notice which the law makes it his duty 
to give “when a public act is approved by the Governor”;— 
to contend that after such a notice by the Secretary to the 
Legislature, the Governor would still have retained any shadow 
of authority over the approved act; that in any sense of the 
word it would be within the executive control, or power to re- 
voke. If then, on the other hand, by the omission or neglect 
of the Secretary, notice were delayed, will it be claimed that 
for five days it would be in the power of the Governor to or- 
der an act which he had once approved, to be withdrawn from 
the file of public laws and to be returned to him from the De- 
partment of State, in order that the same might be sent back by 
him to the Senate as a vetoed bill ? If so, the veto power of 
unapproved bills still rests with the Governor, as provided in 
the Constitution, while a new veto power unknown to the 
Constitution, to wit, the veto of approved bills rests in the Sec- 28 
retary of State and the Governor, jointly; a dual power, unique 
indeed. Of such a divided sovereignty the lion’s share would 
be the Secretary’s ; for his, be it remembered, would be “the right 
of possession.” That puissant functionary would have a choice 
of weapons; for he might, as has been seen, promptly and for- 
ever extinguish the veto power of his superior by notice to the 
legislature; or, forbearing the exercise of that authority, he 
might flatly refuse to deliver even to the Governor a public law 
which had been filed in his office among the records for the 
preservation of which in said office the law holds him respon- 
sible. In case of refusal, by what process known to the 
Constitution or the law could the Governor compel the deliv- 
ery ? 
The statute is plain, explicit and peremptory, but it is direct- 
ed solely to the Secretary of State, and his obedience or diso- 
bedience can affect nobody but himself. “The general principle 
which governs is, that while there should be a strict compliance 
with the provisions of a statute, yet where they are directory 
merely, such strict compliance is not essential to the validity of 
proceedings under such statute, unless they are declared to be 
therein. This is s pecially applicable where the rights of the 
public or of third persons are concerned.” * 
In such case those rights and the evidence to perpetuate 
them are “not to be thrown away because the Secretary of 
State fails, or is unable to comply with this direction.” t 
Notice by the Secretary was “not a proceeding necessary to 
the making or imparting vitality to the law. By it no Act 
could become a law which without it would not be a law.” X 
Again, it will be observed that there is no statute pro- 
vision for the promulgation of Private or Special acts by the 
Secretary of State. Although, for some reason not apparent to 
* Opinion ot Justices of Supreme Court in answer to Governor 
Garcelon. 70 Maine Reports, page 569. 
f Ibid., page 598. % People v. Hatch, 19 111., 283. 29 
your committee, the Secretary was pleased to include a great 
number of private and special acts and indeed resolves in the 
solitary communication which he saw fit to address to the 
House, he was required to give notice of the Governor’s ap- 
proval of public acts only. 
Will it be claimed by defenders of the Governor’s conduct 
(if any such there are,) that the Secretary’s check upon the 
power of the Governor is limited to public acts ? How would 
such a theory work in practice ? Suppose that the legislature, 
after due deliberation and discussion, should relinquish to the 
United States the sovereignty of Maine in an island near the 
coast for the erection of a fortress, and the District Attorney 
of the United States should, after approval of the bill by the 
Governor and its deposit in the archives of the State Depart- 
ment, demand and receive a certified copy of the act under the 
seal of the State, and forward it to Washington. Will it be 
pretended that after the lapse of four days the Governor could 
lawfully recall the act from the custody of the Secretary of 
State, obliterate his signature, and return it with his veto to the 
legislature ? Or suppose the grant of a township of land or 
an appropriation to the Maine General Hospital, or to some 
college, or other charitable institution. Will it be argued that 
at any time within five days after his approval of the act of 
grant, the Governor might lawfully demand its return from the 
archives of the Secretary’s office, cancel his approval and re- 
turn it with his reasons to the house where it originated ? 
Do advocates of the Governor’s proceedings realize the conse- 
quences of such a doctrine, and are they ready to accept them ? 
An honest, common-sense, straight-forward construction of 
the plain, unmistakable language of the Constitution leads to 
no difficulties and involves no such absurdities. 
The Chief Magistracy was designed to be an office of high 
dignity and honor, and it has always commanded the pride and 
respect of the people of Maine. The Governor is furnished 30 
with a Council elected by the Legislature; he is also entitled 
to the advice of the Attorney General, and on important ques- 
tions of law to the opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court. His 
appointments require the assent of his Council, but his prerog- 
ative of approval or disapproval of legislative action is person- 
al and absolute; its exercise is, from the nature of the power, 
final and irrevocable. The attempt to reconsider, recall and 
annul the Executive Approval once deliberately given to an 
Act of the Legislature and emphasized by a deposit of the law 
in the Department of State is dangerous trifling with the Con- 
stitution. If the upright private citizen is recognized as the 
man “that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not,” it is 
of supreme importance that the public acts of the Head of the 
State authenticated by his official signature may be relied and 
depended upon. This truth seems to have impressed itself ev- 
en upon the unprincipled and tyrannical governor of Judaea, 
when he dismissed his crafty advisers, with the contemptuous 
answer, “What I have written I have written”:—the only re- 
deeming circumstance recorded of his administration. 
It is unnecessary to inqnire what would be the effect of a 
manifest inadvertence or mistake on a Governor’s part, as, 
for instance, if he should unintentionally sign a bill which he 
intended to veto, and send it to the Secretary’s office, unwit- 
tingly. For no such question presents itself here: Governor 
Bodwell admits “that after considerable deliberation he concluded 
to approve the bill, and that accordingly he signed it and sent it 
down to the office of the Secretary of State, with several other 
acts which he had approved, and went to dinner.” 
The idea of mistake, inadvertence, or even of haste is express- 
ly excluded and denied by the Governor. Even if such had 
been the case, a message to that effect and a repeal of the law 
thus accidentally approved would seem to be the only lawful 
remedy.* 
* See ('ooley on Constitutional Limitations, Fifth Edition, Note to 
page 186. 31 
But the Governor, as has been said, declares that he made no 
mistake in signing the bill. It was not until several hours after, 
that he began to doubt the wisdom of his official action, and 
even then his doubts were not self-suggested. Nor did they 
emanate from any of his constitutional advisers. 
“After my return from dinner,” said the Governor to the sub- 
committee, “several gentlemen called to express their disapprov- 
al of and opposition to the act, and urged me to recall and veto 
it.”* 
Who those gentlemen were the Governor disclosed to Sena- 
tor Sleeper,t as well as to several other citizens; the name of 
the Attorney General or of any of the Council will not be found 
among them. Neither was the Governor easily persuaded ; for 
at first he objected, supposing that it was not within his consti- 
tutional power to recall the act, but was finally convinced to 
the contrary. “He further said that before lie went to dinner 
he signed the bill and sent it down, and it was now too late to 
do anything about it.” j To the same Senator the Governor was 
pleased to divulge the arguments by which he was finally con- 
vinced of the pernicious tendency of the act, and overper- 
suaded to reverse his original judgment. || 
So far as the researches of your committee have extended, 
the proceedings of Governor Bodwell and at the State Depart- 
ment are without a parallel in the history of constitutional gov- 
ernment. The nearest approach to such a predicament as now 
exists in Maine which your committee have discovered, is found 
in the single authority cited by Judge Cooley in his “Treatise on 
the Constitutional Limitations upon the Legislative Power of 
the States of the American Union.” 
“An act apportioning the representatives was passed by the 
legislature” (of Illinois) “and transmitted to the governor, who 
signed his approval thereon by mistake., supposing at the time that 
* Governor’s Statement to sub-committee, p. 10. f Page 17. 
f Governor’s statement to Senator Sleeper, p. 17. || Pages 17, 19. 32 
he was subscribing one of several other bills then lying before 
him, and claiming his official attention; his private secretary 
thereupon reported the bill to the legislature as approved, not 
by the special direction of the governor, nor with his know- 
ledge or special assent, but merely in his usual routine of cus- 
tomary duty, the governor not being conscious that he had placed 
his signature to the bill until after information was brought to him 
of its having been reported approved ; whereupon he sent a mes- 
sage to the speaker of the house to which it was reported, stat- 
ing that it had been inadvertently signed and not approved, and on 
the same day completed a veto message of the bill which was 
partially written at the time of signing his approval, and trans- 
mitted it to the house where the bill originated, having first 
erased his signature and approval. It was held that the bill 
had not become a law. It had never passed out of the governor's 
possession after it was received by him until after he had erased 
his signature and approval; and the court was of opinion that 
it did not pass from his control until it had become a law by 
the lapse of ten days under the constitution, or by his depositing 
it with his approval in the office of the secretary of state. 
It had long been the practice of the governor to report, for- 
merly through the secretary of state, but recently through his 
private secretary, to the house where bills originated, his ap- 
proval of them; but this was only a matter of formal courtesy, 
and not a proceeding necessary to the making or imparting 
vitality to the law. By it no act could become a law which 
without it would not be a law. Had the governor returned 
the bill itself to the house, with his message of approval, it 
would have passed beyond his control, and the approval could 
not have been retracted, unless the bill had been withdrawn by 
consent of the house; and the same result would have followed his 
filing the bill with the secretary of state with his approval sub- 
scribed."—People v. Hatch, 19 111., 183. 
This is the case cited by Judge Cooley in support of his 
declaration that “The governor’s approval is not complete until 
the bill has passed beyond his control by the constitutional and 
customary mode of legislation; and at any time prior to that 
he may reconsider and retract any approval previously made.” 
—Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, Fifth Edition, page 
186. 33 
This is equivalent to the statement that the Governor’s 
approval is complete as soon as the hill has passed beyond 
his control by the constitutional and customary mode of legis- 
lation ; and after that time he cannot reconsider and retract any 
approval previously made. And this too, as the case cited in 
its support clearly shows, even though the approval was 
signed inadvertently and by mistake. It will be perceived 
that the Illinois case is in every important respect the reverse 
of this in Maine. 
The Governor of Illinois “signed his approval of the Appor- 
tionment bill thereon by mistake”;—the Governor of Maine 
signed his approval of the Registration bill knowingly and “after 
considerable deliberation.” The Illinois governor “supposed at 
the time that he was subscribing one of several other bills then 
lying before him and claiming his official attention”;—Gover- 
nor Bodwell labored under no such misapprehension. The Illi- 
nois Executive “was not conscious that he had placed his 
signature to the bill until information was brought to him 
of its having been approved” ;—our governor, “upon reading it 
carefully had found some things which he did not like,"* uand had 
left the bill upon his table until the last moment before dinner, 
but remembering the strong .vote, about three to one, by which it 
had passed both Senate and Home he had decided to approve 
the bill and leave the responsibility of the law, if it worked 
badly, upon the Legislature."f 
The governor of Illinois, immediately, on discovery of his 
mistake, sent a message to the speaker “stating that the bill had 
been inadvertently signed and not approved,” a manly and 
above-board proceeding, it must be confessed;—the governor of 
Maine sent no such message, nor could he truthfully have done 
so. On the same day the Western chief Magistrate “completed 
a veto message which was partially written at the time of 
* Governor’s Statement to Senator Sleeper, page 16. 
f Ibid., page 17. 34 
signing his approval”; — when our Governor's veto message 
was composed does not appear, hut it will not he pretended 
that it “waspartially written at the time of signing his approval." 
The Illinois bill ‘‘had never passed out of the governor’s 
possession after it was received by him until after he had eras- 
ed his signature and approval;”—Governor Bodwell himself 
states that he “signed the hill and sent it down to the office of tjie 
Secretary of State, with several other acts which he had also ap- 
proved and went to dinner;" that he had “signed the hill and sent 
it down and that it was now too late to do anything about it."* 
And yet the Supreme Court of Illinois declare that in spite 
of his manifest inadvertence, his purely accidental and entirely 
pardonable mistake, nay, in spite of his half-completed veto, the 
bill, “would have passed beyond the governor’s control and the 
approval could not have been retraced,” if he had done inad- 
vertently exactly what the governor of Maine admits that he did 
deliberately and understandingly, namely, “if he had filed the 
bill with the secretary of state, with his approval subscribed.” 
Your committee therefore respectfully submit that their view 
of the Constitution and of the law is thoroughly sustained by 
the high authority of Judge Cooley as well as by that of the 
Supreme Court of Illinois. 
Of the merits of the Registration Act or of the objections 
suggested to the Governor by his advisers, or of the reasons 
for his change of mind mentioned by the Governor to the Sena- 
tor, or of those other reasons assigned in His Excellency’s 
message to the Senate, it is not the purpose of your committee 
to express an opinion. It is with the constitutionality and legal 
effect of the Governor’s action and the consequent status of 
the act that they are at present concerned. 
Your committee did not doubt the sincerity of the Gov- 
ernor’s disavowal of an intention to exceed his authority or 
to conceal any act performed by him in the premises, and of 
* Governor’s Statement to Senator Sleeper, page 17. 35 
all knowledge of the extraordinary proceedings at the Depart- 
ment of State. The cancellation of his official signature of ap- 
proval was effected in a manner which reveals the successive 
phases of the transaction, as it doubtless was designed to do. 
But they confess themselves unable to explain the condition 
of the books kept at the office of the Secretary of State upon 
a similar hypothesis. 
* In the first place there would seem to have been no occasion 
for tampering with them at all. With the Governor, the case 
was different; for after he had been prevailed upon to reverse 
his official action and to send back to the Senate an act which 
he had once approved, it became absolutely necessary for him 
to cancel his signature, because the document could not be the 
subject of his approval and disapproval at the same time. 
This was a part of the awkwardness of the dilemma in 
which a change of base had involved His Excellency: a sig- 
nificant indication of the absurdity of the suggestion of his 
advisers, and a sufficient warning, (one would have supposed,) 
against its acceptance. 
But such reasoning is obviously inapplicable to the entries in 
the Secretary’s books. The Governor never directed any can- 
cellation or alteration of those books; on the contrary, he is 
careful to say that their mutilation was effected without his 
knowledge. Your committee are not informed of any authority 
for meddling with entries once made in either of the volumes, 
even if the Governor had undertaken to direct it; indeed they 
fail to perceive how the removal of the “Act to regulate the 
Practice of Medicine” from the archives of the State Depart- 
ment where it had once been deposited with the other public 
laws of the State in compliance with the request of Governor 
Bod well can be justified by the Secretary of State, the lawful 
custodian of those archives. Ours is, or ought to be “a govern- 
ment of laws, and not of men” ; and a Secretary of State might, 
in your committee’s opinion, “deserve well of the Republic” by 36 
respectfully declining to surrender, even to a Governor, the 
possession of a public law which he knew to have been filed by 
that Governor’s own direction in the archives of the Depart- 
ment of which the Secretary was the sworn custodian, and which 
he must have known that he had no right to deliver to any 
person whatever. 
But if, in the absence of any request, and indeed without his 
Excellency’s knowledge, superserviceable zeal prompted a can- 
cellation of the record of the Governor’s official action in books 
kept for the purpose by the Secretary of State, what excuse can 
be pleaded for following up the cancellations by obliterations 
and mutilations ? for erasures by a knife, and the cutting or 
tearing out of a leaf? 
What worthy purpose required the obliteration of entries 
made in those books in the regular and ordinary course of offi- 
cial business ? Do not those obliterations, taken in connec- 
tion with the denials, evasions and equivocations mentioned by 
Senator Sleeper,* indicate a design to conceal from the people 
of the State the facts in the case by destroying the evidence of 
their existence ? 
Whether those volumes are in the strict technical sense pub- 
lic records is a cavil which can avail nothing in the forum of 
morals, whatever might be its effect in a civil or criminal pro- 
ceeding. Your committee cannot help regarding such eras- 
ures and mutilations as of evil omen and pernicious and porten- 
tous example. 
In view of the extraordinary revelations in reference to the 
approval and subsequent recall and return of the Registration 
Act, elicited by your committee, it was hoped that the Gover- 
nor would be disposed to avail himself of the opinion of the 
Supreme Court in reference to the constitutional and legal ef- 
fect of his official action thereon, and thus to settle at once 
and finally, in a mode pointed out by the Constitution, the status 
* Senator Sleeper’s Statement, page 18. 37 
of that important act. For such an application there was a 
recent memorable precedent. In December, 1879, Governor 
Garcelon, at the request of the late Ex-Secretary Morrill, made 
a similar requirement of the Court, to the great relief of the 
citizens and with the happiest result. 
A like request to Governor Bodwell seemed to your commit- 
tee eminently appropriate, because His Excellency had intima- 
ted to Senator Sleeper his own inclination toward a reference 
of the matter to the Court, and he had also given his word to 
the sub-committee that he would furnish a statement of the 
facts over his signature, so that the question might have been 
submitted by the Governor upon his own recital of his official 
action, unembarrassed by the conduct of any other person, pub- 
lic or private. Furthermore His Excellency’s disavowals of in- 
tentional usurpation of authority and of a desire to conceal or 
suppress his official acts touching the Registration Bill, as well 
as his denial of all knowledge of the sinister practices upon the 
books of the Department of State led your committee to 
believe that he would welcome so auspicious an opportunity to 
rid himself of the disagreeable responsibility which enveloped 
him. In fact it might as well be confessed that at this 
stage of the proceedings, a reference to the Court appeared 
to your committee the only course entirely consistent with 
the honor of all parties, and therefore the only one which 
promised a thoroughly satisfactory solution of the impending 
difficulty. Such is the respect entertained by the Medical Pro- 
fession for the wisdom, impartiality and independence of the 
Court, that an adverse decision on a question of vital impor- 
tance, however it might have disappointed, could not have dis- 
satisfied its members; while a favorable answer ought not to 
have been unacceptable to the Governor, who surely might be 
presumed to be only too grateful to the official interpreters of 
the Constitution for “taking care that the republic received no 
detriment” from unconstitutional executive action. 38 
Accordingly the appeal was made, respectfully but unsuccess- 
fully. Finally the Governor was requested to perform what 
seemed to your committee his plain duty, viz:—to appoint a 
State Board of Medical Examination and Registration, in obedi- 
ence to the third section of the statute. 
To proceed further without special direction did not seem 
to your Committee within the purview of their instructions, 
which were “to ascertain the status of the Registration Act.” 
[Conclusion.] 
Your Committee have been led by the foregoing evidence 
to the following conclusion : 
That “An Act to regulate the Practice of Medicine/’ hav- 
ing, after full discussion in both branches passed by extraordi- 
nary majorities, (16 to 6 in the Senate and 89 to 30 in the 
House) was presented to the Governor about noon of Thurs- 
day, March 17, 1887, with several other bills; that after 
considerable deliberation the Governor understandingly ap- 
proved and signed the bill according to the requirements of 
the Constitution, and thereupon sent it down to the office of 
the Secretary of State, with the other acts which he had ap- 
proved about the same time, to be deposited as a public law 
in the archives of the State Department, among the laws of 
the State. 
That said act was then and there received by the Secretary 
of State and deposited in his office among the laws, and the fact 
of the Governor’s approval, thus made known to the Secretary, 
was duly entered in the usual manner in the books kept in 
said office for that purpose. 
That thereby and at that time, viz:—about noon of said day, 
the Registration Act became, to all intents and purposes, a pub- 
lic law of the State, and passed beyond the control of the 
Governor or either branch of the Legislature, except by a stat- 39 
ute of repeal enacted by both branches and approved by the 
Governor. 
That thereupon it became the duty of the Secretary of State 
to “give written notice thereof to the presiding officers of the 
Senate and House,” according to law. 
That the Secretary’s neglect of duty could not and did 
not enlarge or extend the constitutional prerogative of the 
Governor, or prevent said act so approved and deposited from 
becoming a public law according to the Constitution, or defeat, 
postpone or delay the same. 
That the mutilations of the books in the State Department 
and the erasures of the entries which recorded the fact and date 
of the Governor’s approval of said act and its deposit in said 
Department as a public law were unauthorized by the Govern- 
or and were accomplished without his knowledge, and are of 
no effect to invalidate, repeal or nullify the same. 
That the Secretary of State had no warrant of law to sur- 
render to the Governor or to any other person possession of 
the Registration Act which several hours before had been re- 
ceived from the Governor approved by his official signature and 
had thereupon been filed among the laws of the State and the 
fact of his approval entered in the usual manner in the books 
kept in the State Department for that purpose, because 
the same had already become, by the Governor’s deliberate 
official action, of which the Secretary of State was cognizant, a 
public law, of whose approval it was his official duty to give 
prompt written notice to the two houses, said public law being 
then and there a part of the records of the State which the 
statute requires to be kept in the office of the Secretary of 
Stale and in the Secretary’s custody, the knowing and wilful 
removal whereof therefrom is declared to be felony. (R. S., c. 
117, §7.) 
That the proceedings of the Governor touching said act 
during the afternoon and evening of said day several hours 40 
after his approval and deposit thereof in the State Depart- 
ment, viz:—his recall of the same, the cancellation of his offi- 
cial signature, the return of the act after said cancellation to 
the Senate, and the sending an accompanying message were all 
unconstitutional and void, being beyond his constitutional au- 
thority and power. 
That said Act is now a public law of the State constitution- 
ally binding upon every public officer as well as upon each 
citizen of Maine until it shall be repealed according to law. 
And that therefore it wTas the duty of the Governor to carry 
the same into elfect by the appointment, on or before the first 
day of May, 1887, of “a State Board of Medical Registration 
and Examination,” according to the requirements of the third 
section of said act. 
Your committee have endeavored to discharge the duty en- 
trusted to them in a manner befitting the gravity of the situation 
and the magnitude of the issue. 
Respect for the Executive office prompted them to address 
their inquiry to the Governor in person, as the dignified and 
honorable means of ascertaining the truth in reference to an 
important public transaction, the usual and appropriate evidence 
of which had been obliterated by those whose duty it was 
to preserve it. Relying upon the Governor’s promise of a 
written statement, your committee would gladly have accept- 
ed any version of his proceedings which he had been pleas- 
ed to send. Disappointed in this, they still retained the hope 
that the Chief Magistrate would not refuse a respectful re- 
quest to submit the constitutional and legal effect of his 
extraordinary action to the judgment of the Court in the way 
expressly provided for such cases. 
They were slow to believe that “the only individual in the 
world,” (to borrow the language of Ex-Secretary Morrill’s let- 41 
ter to Governor Garcelon) “who could command the prompt 
opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court,” would refuse to follow 
the example of his predecessors in the executive chair whose 
“habit has been uniform and general to apply to the court for 
the interpretation of the law.” 
Your committee’s experience is an unpleasant reminder 
that if the fundamental principle of representative government 
is to be re-asserted in 1887, it must be maintained without 
the aid which, at the crisis of 1879, the Governor was willing 
to contribute. 
If their view of the treatment which this act has received 
at the hands of the Executive Department is correct, it is mani- 
fest that a great wrong has been committed against the Medi- 
cal Profession and the Constitution: for a public law has been 
withdrawn from the archives of the State Department without- 
the consent or knowledge of the Legislature, and expunged 
from the’statute book. 
Whether the Medical Registration Actor any other law of 
the State, however beneficent, is enforced or annulled is in it- 
self of minor importance; but whether the will of the electors 
of Maine expressed by a vote of three fourths of their Senators 
and Representatives and approved by their Governor accord- 
ing to the Constitution and the law can be defeated by unlaw- 
ful and unconstitutional means, and redress through the courts 
be prevented by the denial, withholding or destruction of record 
evidence ot executive action is, in the judgment of your commit- 
tee,a question of a very serious character. 
Good faith and strict conformity to the Constitution and to 
the law on the part of the ruler is as indispensable to the per- 
manence of republican institutions as patriotism and obedience 
on the part of the private citizen. The axiom is eminently 
true of State governments, notably of our own, where under 
the biennial system, the Executive Department is left, by the 
early and final adjournment of the Legislature, virtually in- dependent and irresponsible for at least twenty-one months 
out of the twenty-four. 
Abundant experience has proved that a republic, unfaithful- 
ly and arbitrarily administered, is no better than a despotism; 
if controlled by a junto, it may become worse. There is no 
saving political grace inherent in govermental ordinances. 
Quis custodes custodiet ? 
That the Registration Act became and remains a public 
law of Maine, of full validity and constitutional and legal force, 
your committee entertain no doubt; but whether the mutilation 
of the books kept in the Department of State, coupled with His 
Excellency’s refusal to authenticate his verbal statement of his 
own official action, his further refusal to consult the Court 
thereon, and his neglect to make the appointments required by 
the act, interpose an insurmountable obstacle to the successful 
prosecution of legal measures to assert the rights secured to 
the Medical Profession by said act and to obtain for our fellow- 
citizens the protection to which they are entitled, during the 
present administration of the State government, and thus for 
the present the “great command shall o’ersway the order” and 
the law;—or whether redress may nevertheless be had, and 
the rights thus jeopardized be vindicated and regained in the 
courts, is a question on which your committee forbear to ex- 
press an opinion, preferring to leave the consideration and if 
need be, the prosecution of the same, to the wisdom of the As- 
sociation. 
All of which is respectfully submitted. 
M. C. Wedgwood, 
Henry P. Merrill, 
J. L. Bennett, 
F. C. Thayer, 
C. W. Goddard. 
Portland, June 4, 1887. 
42