The Democratic Whig. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1842-1843, 1843-08-10

Tue At4td annexed thereto. hey have also
introduced and read The act Of the legislature,
authorizing Their issuance.
Tbs act upon lie face i constitutional
Every thing. ofwlrich,any record i to Be made
By reference % the Journals. has been done
10 a manner strictly regular. SO faF, then, the
whole proof is against the State; and It q in
curnbent On those who deny her billy to IN
ssSss.ioe proof 10 rebut the presumption against
Der. Il Is said that the act was not published
IN ihe manner prescribed BY the constitution.
| deny this, end require proof that i was nol 80
published. The Governor and The member
e the legislature were sworn 10 support the
constitution. Before they sanctioned tlie paa-
sage Of the law, il was their sworn duty to see
that 4 had been properly published, ana ss the
law enl0lns TINS upon them, It raises the pre-
sumption in their favor that they did their duty
and that they aad competent evidence Of the
fact Equalization before thfm when they vo-
ted for and approved the law. Il is a well es.
iabished rule Of law, founded 10 reason and
common sense. that every man aetingiu an Of
ieial capacity shall be presumed to DO bis du-
~. More particularly IS this rule applicable
to those who act under the sanction Of an oath.
(See 2 Phillips on Evidence, 206,) Inasmuch
hen, as the Governorand the Legislature who
passed this law were bound to enquire into the
iaet adjudication, the lax. raises the pFesulnp-
lion that they did 50. and that evidence Of its
publication was satisfactorily submitted to
them. To rebut this presumption raised BY
law, we are met only BY the reckless assertions
oginieresied partisans, without one particle Of
testimony. Under such circumstances, what
jury could hesitate IN finding verdict agains.
the Slatel -.t.a
But again: the Governor and the legislature
are the sole tribunal by which the question Of
publication is to be decided. The question Of
publication s entirely question Of evidence
AID whether the law had been published or not
as required BY the constitution, music necesi
sity be decided by them. When they lad
once decided, their decision is final ana decisive
against the world.
By the constitution, the sole law making
power is confded in the legislature. The pow.
or of The legislature to pledge the faith Of
the State for any sum whatever, is only linn
tied by that instrument. Before the legisla-
laiurs to whom The act Of pledging the faith
Of the State is referred, can repass the law
submitted to If, it must have evidence ad-
dueed before it Of the publication Of the law
in the manner prescribed by the constitution.
It then becomes the Judge OF the sufficiency
Of that testimony because it bases its action
on the evidence produced. Il must, ofcourse.
decide upon the evidence; and if the evidences
offered be sufficient to satisfy t. and il pro-
ceeds 70 act upon and decide tho question. lie
decision IS necessarily final and conclusive, be-
cause the law has made no provision for an ap-
pealt1 any other tribunal, nor required any re-
cord to be kept Of the evidence offered, in or
der that the action If the lansiasura nania Dc
investigated By another forum. and itsiudg.
ments, if erroneous reverse and corrected
That The legislature must be the exclusive
Judge the fact Of publication, and Of the sufh.
cheney oftho evidence Of that fact, may be very
easily and clearly illustrated. The constitution
requires the publication to be made for threi
m0nths--Aionths are either lunar or calendar
Some. courts have held, when the term smunlh'
is used in a law, L means a lunar month; 9th
ers have decided that g calendar month was in
tended. Suppose a law pledgiEg the faith o
the State had been published thsee lunai
| months, but not three calendar months and tha
| the legislature should decide that, BY the tern
amonth." in the constitution, was meant luna
and not a calendar month; and so deciding
should enact the law a second time, and tha
BY authority Of this law money should be Dor
rowed by the State. Now, unless the legisla
ture IS the exclusive Judge Of the fact Of publ
cation, and the suficiency Of the eYidenc
1 thereof it would be perfectly competent 70
every judicial tribunal in the State, from tn
1 lowest Justices Court TO The High Court (
Errors and Appeals, to declare that by lh
term months IN the constitution, the cQnven
ton intended calendar moathss and eonsg
quentlys that the act the legislature was IN
constitutional and void. Thus would the dc
cision Of one tribunal competent to decide th
question, and compelled 70 make decisio
before its action, be subject to reversal By Al
other and different tribunal, without any Al
peal or writ Of error being provided to ogel
haul the decision first made. Sopapable q
! a6surdity cannot be tolerated for a single i
slant. Il being once admitted that he poa0s
to decide whether the law bad been pablishe
OF not in accordance with the constitution
belonged to the legislature, and that they has
once decided hat question, the whole eontri
: versy on this point is at an end, The Suprem
Court Of the United States, in the case Of Al
] redondo and others, have laid down the la
/, upon this question, clearly an1 distinctly. !
follows:
1T Is "a universal principle that where pot
er or discretion is delegated to any public Q
Z ficer or tribunal, over a subject matter. and j
exercise is coahded to his or their diseretio
, the acts so done are binding and valid as 70 4
! the subject matter, The only questions WIKI
J can arise between en- individual claiming
J right under The acts done. and the pubic,
: .wv nnfsns aauviug lie validifv are Nosaa~
{ tie officer and fraud II tie partt, All 9th
questions are settled BY The decision made
3 act done By The tribunal officer whether exc
9 ulive, Legislative, judicial OF special, unless
{ appeal IS provided for, o. other revision,
Z some appellate or supervisory tribunal ls pr
seribed By law" 6 Peters r. 100.
Q Again. The Supreme Court Of Mas5aeh
7 sets, 10 the case Of Perkins " Fairfield, ha
: laid down the rule broadly and clearly. 7
: question was a. q the validity ofa sale Of r
> estate made By an administrator BY virtue q
s license from the Court Of Common PIE
6 The Supreme Court Says
The order Of the Court af Common Pc
g under which the administrators made tie g
n this case, was a license 70 them TO make 81
= az ali the real estate Of The intestats. al
e Court bad jurisdiction Of the subject MISTER.
Z that jurisdiction was impFnYdeasly exercise
z Of n manner nol learnaHied By lAe epidsf
I from fas Probate Cossrt, yet i IS not to be G
/ reetel at the expense Of purchaser who
2 3 riahG 70 gelY upon tie order nfthe Court
2 an authority smanating from competent lul
E dietioa." II Mass. r, 22T.
4 A similar decision was made IN ehe cas-