By the latest reapportionment of the House of Representatives (tit. 2, U. S. C. A., art. 2a), passed in 1929, Minnesota received one less representative than it had had by the previous apportionment (Act of 1911, tit. 2, U. S. C. A., sec. 2). The state legislature of Minnesota passed an act dividing the state into congressional districts in accordance with this apportionment, and the governor vetoed the bill. Thereupon the state house of representatives, by resolution, directed the secretary of state to enroll the bill as a law on the ground that the veto of the governor was a nullity as applied to it. In an action commenced to test the validity of this law, held, (1) Art. 1, sec. 4 of the Constitution of the United States calls for the exercise of the ordinary lawmaking power of the state, and an act passed under its authority must be passed like any ordinary measure, Therefore, where the state constitution gives the governor a general veto power, as it does in Minnesota, the veto is as effective on redistricting legislation as it would be on any other act of the legislature. (2) The Act of 19 u has not been repealed in so far as it is not in conflict with the later act. (3) Whether the redistricting act in question violated the standards set up in the Act of 1911 is an abstract question and is not decided. Smiley v. Holm (U. S. 1932) 52 Sup. Ct. 397, reversing (Minn. 1931) 238 N. W. 494.