Liberty advocate. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1835-1866, 1841-10-21

y
erS, &c and receive the approval of tn
Governor, before it shall become a law
Now, the mere fact that the bill was rea
and passed three several times in eac
House is no necessary part of the acl
ana never appear upon It's face; and tn
Judiciary must presume and take it 60
granioI that all the acquisitions of TIT
CONSTITUTION have been complied with
Otherwise the Speaker OF the House, thu
ffeSIdyht OF the Senate would never have
signed and the Governor approved it
Every law or act read from the statute
book, Il my position BE- incorrect, would
have to be proved, Another section Of
the Constitution declares that "all bills for
raising revenue shall originate In the
House bt Representatives" Now, the
fact thai such bill originated in the House,
constitutes no part of The bill, and yet
that fact must be presumed, to give il Of.
feet. And whys Simply because those
who passed, signed aud approved it were
the sworn officers or agents OF the people,
and we must not presume that they VIC.
lated their duty. Other striking illus.
uatIons, drawn from the Constitution
might be adduced, IN support Of my posi-
ton. But | contend farther that, the
State is estoPped from denying the fact
OF publication. have shown that, the
members otlhe Legislature aud the Exec
culIve were the only persons who were to
be satisfied that the act was duly publish.
e.. They are the only properly consti.
iuted Judges, appointed and chosen by
the people themselves, OF, the fact OF pub.
LEGATION, They, by passing the act, and
the Governor by approving it, have de-
cIared to the world that, there was no
constitutional barrier OF impediment to
the passage and approval OF the act
THAI the acquisitions OF the fundamental
law had, IN all things, been strictly CONS
Piled with, and therefore, the act is con-
repeat that, the Constitu-
tlon makes them the sole Judges of the
'act ofp Publication, and this is not mere
assertion. In Peters Reports, in the
case Of Ross VS. Barand, ct ais, page 666,
The court decides thus principle. Com
mlSsloners were appointed under the act,
relative to claims OF lands oil the Unite 4
States, south of the State Of Tennessee.
and were authorized to hear evidence as
TO the time OF the actual evacuation Of the
territory by the Spanish troops, and to
decide upon the facts. The law gave
them the power TO hear and decide all
matters respecting such claims, and TO de-
eide thereon, according TO justice and
equity. The court decided that they were
bound to presume that every fact neces
iarv to warrant the certificate, IN the
erms Of IA, was proved before the com
and that consequently, IL UdS
holca to them, that Tie .fnai ecacuaiion Of
Re Spanish troops tO5k Piace on the 30M Of
ilrch, 1898. Now, apply this principle
} the case in hand The Constitution
uthorized the Legislature 20 pass the
CT in question, under certain forms and
equisjtonS. All those forms and requi~
tons actually appear TO have been com
led with, but the TACT Of publication -
he members of the legislature, who
one had the right to pass the act, and
e Executive, to approve it, upon the
lowledge or evidence of the publication,
G necessarily the only Judges Of the fact,
of the kind and character of the evil
nee requisite to establish it, Then, if t
ely were the constitutional Judges ofthe :
.t, or the measure and degree of evi
nee requisite to prove that fact, then L
} are bound TO presume every fact me- Il
ssary 10 warrant the passage and APP Z
oval of the act. Then, is not the State l
opped and forever barred from inqui- u
e INTO the fact Of publication? What ?
the true statement OF the States de- u
lcet Lei US suppose that suit has been II
lltuied upon her bonds. These bonds d
n upon their face the highest assn u
lca OF their legality. The Governor st
) signed then--they are countersignad p
the Treasurer land aItesled by the eS
eat Seal Of the 5 ale The STATE pleads b,
t there is no law authorizing their exc d.
ion. The law IS produced, and appears Sc
nave been passed by two legislatures 10
approved ny the Executive. But it is DC
Jed that the act was never published, Sc
the States counsel propose to show
I fact. What will the court say!- Is
at the act upon It's face is constitutions m
-and the State cannot be permitted to IL
,blsh fact aiiuade, to show the an 81
sttuIlonalty OF the act, and more es- tn
ally, as the Constitution itself, the q,
ann compact Of the people, has, by way tC
necessary implication, made the mem. ~
) OF the Legislature, and the Execu- M
the only Judges OF the existence OF Iai
fact an
al, again the members of the Legs en-
re, IN Government like ours, are the "
'esentatlyes or ag.n,s OF the people, Du
their acts are binding and obligatory res
! the people. Now, II is a truth that saI
be easily established, that the Legls- PIE
re OF the State, which met or conye, Cd
a Ina anI rnIa III +