Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

572 OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN nonorahleSldntQLatham memty of state Austin, Xexa~ mar Lir. Lathapt ch s&l1 have .passeitWtFi It is well settle& that the tiae rllowed by canetlt~~tion%l prariainn f+oz- conslderetion of bill% ie a xiattbr Or priVi1e@ With the (IOT0XTka!=, rho imy w&Ye h%E I%$!$b 20 the full per+it ZWId veto Or RppPWe fJ bill within the allotted period. ;Uant v. State, 32 Ark. 241, 7s 8. W.769, 106 A. Sti 8. 34, 2 Ann. CRR. 33, 88 L. B.A. 71; Piokle T. m%a, 86 Tex. 3X?, 24 9. w. 26U# 26 u. C. L. 698. While the Gmwnw retains a bill in hle papsemion and under hia oontral titNn the 8Ilottad pwiocl, he may moonelder hle eotion tbereonr ?mt ihem he apprwee ti etgns a MU, end depodte it with the 6wretwy eS $tote, the ef'ficial rspooitorJ uf t&o OSfiOiSl sate e.f the Ornemer am3 of all lam, he kae 'pl8oedthe bill b aad Us control anl rapl net themaeiter rea%ll the b&l"i fWtm the Sdoretery oi stat&s offioe for Pua%hw ootmldwation. Peon20 T. McGullou~ (IU.) '71 Ur B. 6~8~,,pLoJcLoY. ReColl, supra; au ii. c. L. m2g 119 c. 3. mt. Very truly rows