THEODORE R. MCKELDIN, GOVERNOR 303

ments to it and passage on second reading; all prior to final
action on the Budget Bill. Subsequent parliamentary man-
euvers, commencing with recommitment of the Bill, in an
attempt to nullify the premature and admittedly uncon-
stitutional action, gave no further consideration to the
amendments which had been voted into the Bill, and at
least one of which, made a material change in it. The amend-
ments all appear in the final third reading copy of the Bill,
but were never legally adopted in the House, within the pur-
view of the constitutional prohibition.

Under one view, the amendments remained in the Bill
after it was recommitted and continuously thereafter. If
this interpretation is accepted, the Bill in unconstitutional
because the legislative vote upon the amendments preceded
passage of the budget.

The only possible alternative conclusion is that recon-
sideration and recommitment of the measure erased all
legislative action on the Bill, including the amendments pre-
maturely adopted. This result would likewise render the
measure unconstitutional since the House took no action
to restore the amendments which appear in the final third
reading copy of the Bill, while the Senate passed the Bill,
with the amendments. Consequently, they either must be
taken to have passed different version of the same bill, or
that the Bill, so amended, did not receive the number of
readings in the House which the Constitution requires.
After careful study of the opinion, I concur in the Attorney
General's conclusion, which appears to be based on careful
research and sound legal analysis.

It has been suggested that despite the opinion of the
Attorney General, I nevertheless have the power to sign this
Bill and thus shift the constitutional question to a court for
determination. Such a court test would be assured because
no underwriting firm could possibly accept bonds issued by
authority of this Bill without a final judicial ruling. I do
not choose to avoid my responsibility by shifting it to others,
nor, in view of the clear unconstitutionality of the measure,
do I feel that its signing would be consistent with my oath
of office. Furthermore, such an irresponsible course of
action would merely serve to prolong for an additional period
of time a snare and delusion based on false hopes sought to
be inspired in our war veterans, through this measure.
These brave citizens who honorably served their state and
nation are worthy of honest treatment by public officials.
I cannot agree to aid and abet, nor myself indulge in,
political trickery to win their support. I believe that the
veterans of this state are not so naive as to misunderstand