One Day Late: The Veto That May Hang a Man

House bill No. 332, by Lee of Pierce, permitting a second appeal in certain felony cases, came back to the House under the governor's veto. When the reading of the message was concluded, Lee of Pierce called for a statement of the record relative to the bill. The clerk's record showed that the measure was sent to the governor on February 23. Lee then insisted that the bill had become a law, as yesterday was the last day on which the governor could veto it. He moved that the bill be sent to the office of the secretary of state without further action.

It was developed that though the veto message had not been received by the House until today, it had been signed by the governor yesterday, and a question arose as to whether it was necessary to actually deliver the message to the House within the five days. This was decided in the affirmative, and the opinion prevailed that the bill had become a law by lapse of time. Lee opposed a motion by Wheeler to postpone consideration of the matter until tomorrow, and made a plea for speedy action on humane grounds, as he had introduced the bill for the especial purpose of giving Pecani, whose execution has been fixed for March 7 at Tacoma, another chance for his life. He declared that the hanging of the Italian would be judicial murder.

Jackson stated that he was opposed to the bill, and would have voted to sustain the governor's veto if it had been received in time, but he was convinced that it was now beyond the reach of a veto. The House agreed to Lee's motion. Mesny gave notice that he would ask consent to introduce a bill to repeal the act.

County Attorney Snell, of Pierce county, who was present during the discussion, had, before the question was raised as to the regularity of the veto, authorized Nash of Pierce to state that if the veto should be sustained he would stipulate with the attorneys for Pecani that the case of the condemned man could again be taken to the supreme court and heard on its merits.

After the House today decided not to consider the governor's veto, and ordered the bill sent to the secretary of state, the latter refused to receive it because it did not contain the signature of the governor.

An examination of the records of the governor's office disclosed that the bill was received there on Friday, February 24, at 12:50 p.m., instead of on Thursday, February 23, as is shown on the face of the House records. Two other bills were transmitted to the governor along with the one in question, and the records in all the cases are identical. The messenger who carried the three bills says he is not sure whether they were taken to the governor on Thursday or Friday, and that he did not note the date. In view of these facts the only reasonable explanation seems to be that the House receipts were made out one day before being used. Chief Clerk Nicklin, on the other hand, is positive that the records of the House are correct, and when the secretary of state returned the bill to him he directed its transmission a second time, together with a copy of the House journal containing the order for such transmission. On receipt of this order tomorrow morning Secretary Price will place the bill on file in his office, and the whole subject will again be brought up for discussion tomorrow in the House.