Edwards v. United States, 286 U.S. 482 (1932)

U.S. Supreme Court EDWARDS v. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 482 (1932)

286 U.S. 482

EDWARDS v. UNITED STATES. No. 790. Argued April 11, 1932. Decided May 31, 1932.

Attorney General Mitchell for the United States.[ Edwards v. United States 286 U.S. 482 (1932) ]

[Page 286 U.S. 482, 487]

within the time fixed and in the meantime the Congress has adjourned.

The proceedings and debates of the Constitutional Convention throw no light upon this question. See The Pocket Veto Case, supra, at page 675 of 279 U. S., 49 S. Ct. 463. Nor has the provision received a practical construction so positive and consistent as to be determinative. The general practice of Presidents, in being present at the Capitol for the purpose of signing bills during the closing hours of the sessions of the Congress, has indicated the existence of doubt and the desire to avoid controversy. [Footnote 1] It appears that the question was raised during the administration of President Monroe, and, in view of a difference of opinion among his advisers, the bill in question was not signed. [Footnote 2] President

[Page 286 U.S. 482, 488]

Lincoln, on March 12, 1863, approved a bill after the Congress had adjourned sine die on March 4, 1863, the bill having been passed on March 3, 1863 (chapter 120, 12 Stat. 820). This action was not left unchallenged. The Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives made a unanimous report, in response to a resolution of the House, that the act was not in force. [Footnote 3] It does not appear that the House acted upon this report. But the Congress soon after passed an act which referred to the Act of

[Page 286 U.S. 482, 490]

of the Second Session of the Sixty-Sixth Congress. [Footnote 8] This precedent was followed in the instant case by President Hoover, relying upon the opinion of Attorney General Mitchell that there was no ground for a distinction as to the President's power in this respect between the case of adjournment at the close of a session and the final adjournment of the Congress.

The authority of the President to approve bills during a recess of the Congress, but within the time fixed by the Constitution, has been sustained by this Court. La Abra Silver Mining Co. v. United States, , 20 S. Ct. 168. It appeared in that case that on December 22, 1892, two days after presentation of the bill to the President, the Congress had taken a recess until January 4, 1893. The bill was signed by the President on December 28, 1892. The Court expressly reserved the question, as one not before the Court, whether the President could approve a bill 'after the final adjournment of Congress for the session.' But the reasoning of the opinion applies with as much force to the case of an adjournment, whether it is at the close of a session or is the final adjournment of the Congress, as to the case of a recess for a specified period.

The Court effectively answered the opposing contention based upon the legislative character of the President's function in approving or disapproving bills. See Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 52 S. Ct. 397, 76 L. Ed. -. The fact that it is a legislative function does not mean that it can be performed only while Congress is in session. The President acts legislatively under the Constitution, but he is not a constituent part of the Congress. [Footnote 9] In the La Abra Case the Court said

[Page 286 U.S. 482, 493]

delivered to the Secretary of State as required by law.' [Footnote 10]

Another objection has been raised that, if the authority of the President to approve bills continues after adjournment of the Congress, an incoming President might approve bills passed during the official term of his predecessor. [Footnote 11] But it does not follow that because an incoming President, to whom a bill has not been presented by the Congress, cannot approve it, that a continuing President, to whom a bill has been presented by the Congress, must be debarred of his opportunity to give his approval within the time which the Constitution has prescribed.

[Page 286 U.S. 482, 494]

approved or may fail although on such examination they might be found to deserve approval.

In the instant case, the President, to whom the bill was presented, approved it within the time prescribed by the Constitution, and upon that approval it became a law. The question certified is answered in the affirmative.

It is so ordered. Footnotes

Footnote 1 See Memoirs of John Quincy Adams (1875), vol. 7, pp. 233, 234.

Footnote 2 John Quincy Adams gives the following account of this incident:'Another question discussed was, whether the President could now sign the Act concerning the Florida wreckers, which was examined and actually announced to the House as having been signed, but accidentally, among forty or fifty other Acts approved the last evening before the close of the session, remained without his signature. Could the President sign an Act, Congress not being in session? Wirt thought he could. So did I. The article of the Constitution concerning the signature of the President to Acts of Congress was read and analyzed. Nothing in it requiring that the President should sign while Congress are in session.'Calhoun said that uniform practice had established a practical construction of the Constitution.'I observed that the practice had merely grown out of the precedents in the British Parliament. But the principles were different. The King was a constituent part of Parliament, and no Act of Parliament could be valid without the King's approbation. But the president is not a constituent part of Congress, and an Act of Congress may be valid as law without his signature or assent.'Calhoun still thought that the uniform practice made the law. ... And as the Act was to commence its operation only in October, and was not of an urgent character, it was concluded to be the safest course to leave the Act unsigned, and state the facts to Congress at their next session.' Memoirs of John Quincy Adams (1875), vol. 6, pp. 379, 380.

Footnote 3 The Committee said that the act had been approved by the President 'under the belief that the last clause of the section of the Constitution, above quoted, was designed more especially to prevent Congress from enacting laws without the approval of the Executive, which might be done by the passage of bills by the two houses, followed by an adjournment, before the President could examine and return them, were it not for the declaration that in such cases the bills shall not be laws; and did not relate to cases wherein the Executive should approve bills sent to him by Congress within ten days, even though an adjournment should occur before the return of the bills.'That there is force and plausibility in this position, a little reflection will discover to any mind; but the committee cannot receive it as a correct interpretation of the Constitution.'The ten days' limitation contained in the section above quoted refers to the time during which Congress remains in session, and has no application after adjournment. Hence if the Executive can hold a bill ten days after adjournment, and then approve it, he can as well hold it ten months before approval. This would render the laws of the country too uncertain, and could not have been intended by the framers of the Constitution.'The spirit of the Constitution evidently requires the performance of every act necessary to the enactment and approval of laws to be perfect before the adjournment of Congress.'The committee, therefore, conclude that the act referred to, approved March 12, 1863, is not in force; and in this conclusion the committee are unanimous.' H. R. Report No. 108, 38th Cong., 1st Sess., June 11, 1864.

Footnote 4 Other references to the Act of March 12, 1863, as approved, are found in the Act of July 28, 1866, c. 298, 8, 14 Stat. 329; Act of July 27, 1868, c. 276, 3, 15 Stat. 243.

Footnote 5 Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 404, 420, 423; United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall. 56, 64; In re Zellner, 9 Wall. 244, 245, 666; United States v. Padelford, 9 Wall. 531, 540; United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128; Carroll v. United States, 13 Wall. 151; Armstrong v. United States, 13 Wall. 154; Pargoud v. United States, 13 Wall. 156. See Hodges v. United States, 18 Ct. Cl. 700; United States v. Weil, 29 Ct. Cl. 523.

Footnote 6 President Johnson filed the bill in the State Department with an indorsement, stating his belief that approval in these circumstances was not authorized by the Constitution. 4 Hinds' Precedents, 3493. A resolution directing the re-enrollment of the bill was passed by the House of Representatives but not by the Senate. Id.

Footnote 7 The statement has been made that Attorney General Garland advised President Cleveland that he was without authority to sign bills after Congress had adjourned (see 32 American Law Review, p. 212), but we are informed that there is no record in the Department of Justice of any opinion by Attorney General Garland upon the subject. See 36 Op. Attys. Gen. at page 404.

Footnote 8 The session adjourned sine die on June 5, 1920, 41 Stat. 363, 1639. The following bills were subsequently approved by the President: Act of June 10, 1920, c. 285, 41 Stat. 1063 (16 USCA 791-823); Acts of June 14, 1920, cc. 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 and 291, 41 Stat. 1077-1079. See 30 Yale Law Journal, 1.

Footnote 9 See Note 2.

Footnote 10 Compare Seven Hickory v. Ellery, 103 U.S. 423; People v. Bowen, 21 N. Y. 517; State ex rel. Belden v. Fagan, 22 La. Ann. 545; Solomon v. Commissioners, 41 Ga. 157; Lankford v. County Commissioners of Somerset County, 73 Md. 105, 20 A. 1017, 22 A. 412, 11 L. R. A. 491.

Footnote 11 See opinion of Chief Justice Richardson in United States v. Weil, 29 Ct. Cl. 523, 549.