The Democratic Whig. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1842-1843, 1843-08-10
COLUMBUS NEIsslseIF'L THURSDAY AUeUsr no. ls4s


uuE.u m nm
the State. The bond hoI5eT7 have m ,-,,5..--5
the bonds signed BY the Governor.
sagnel by the Secretary, and with fhe zeal -
the state annexed thereto. They have Ala.
ln.louuced and read the act Of the legislature
auf horIzing their issuance. =
+ dds act upon It's face Is Constitutional
Every thing. ofwhich. any record is to be made
oy reference to the journals, has been done
70 manner strictly regular. So far, then, the
Wnoie proof ls against the State; and it Is Inc
cumbent on those who deny her Tia billy to in
srou'cs PROOF 20 reout the presumption against
neF. II - SAID that the act was not published
IN the manner prescribed by the constitution.
deny tins, and require proof that it was moi SO
pn0isned. The Governor and the members
~ the legislature were sworn to stlpnorf fhe
constitution. Before they sanctioned the pas
sage OF the law, it was their sworn duty to see
that t had been properly published, ana as the
law enJolns this upon them, it raises the pre-
sumption IN Their favor that they did their duty
and that they lad competent evidence of the
fact Equalization before them when they vo
ted for and approved the law. 1t is well es.
tabllshed rule Of law, founded in reason and
common senses that every man acting in an of
aclal capacity shall be presumed to do his du-
w. More particularly IS this rule applicable
to those who act under the sanction of an oath.
lSee Phillips on Evidence, 1867. 1nasuiuch
hen, as the Governor and the Legislature who
passed this law were bound to enquire into the
fact publication, the law raises the pFesump-
| ton that they did so. 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
otlnterested partisans, without one particle of
testimony. Under such circumstances, what
jury could hesitate In finding verdict against
the State?
But again: the Governor and the legislature
| are the sole tribunal by which the question of
publication is to be decided. the question of
puhlica ton is entirely a question of evidence;
| and whether the law had been published or not
as required by the constitution, must of neces4
| sity be decided by them. When they had
once decided, their decision is final and decisive
| against the world
By the constitution, the sole law making
power is confided 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-
Iaiurs to whom the act of pledging the faith
of the State is referred, can repass the law
| submitted to it, it must have evidence adj
ductd before it of the publication of the law
in the manner prescribed by the constitution.
1t then becomes the Judge of the sufficiency
of that testimony, because it bases its action
on the evidence produced 1t must, of course,
decide upon the evidence; and If the evidence
offered be sufficient TO satisfy it, and it pro-
ceeds to act upon and decide tho question, its
decision is necessarily final and conclusive, be-
cause the law has made no provision for an APP
peslto any other tribunal, nor required any re-
cord to be kept of the evidence offered, in or
der that the action nf rho Legislature might be
| investigated by another forum. and its ludg-
| ments, if erroneous reverse and corrected
i That the legislature must be the exclusive
Judge of the fact Of publication. and of the sufi-
| cheney ofthe evidence of that fact, may be very
easily and clearly illustrated. The constitution
requires the publication to be made for three
naOnths-Months are either lunar or calendar
Some courts have held, whenthe term "monih"
is used in a law. it means lunar month; 9TH
ers have decided that calendar month was IN
| tended Suppose a law pledgiEg the faith of
the State had been published thEee lunar
months, but not three calendar months, and that
the legislature should decide that, by the term
amonth,' In the constitution, was meant lunar
and not calendar month; and so deciding,
should enact the law a second time, and that
by authority of this law money should be bor-
! rowed by the State. Now, unless the legisla-
ture is the exclusive judge of the fact of publi-
cation, and the sufficiency Of the evidence
thereof it would be perfectly competent for
every judicial tribunal in the State, rom the
lowest Justices Court to The High Court Of
Errors and Appeals, to declare that by the
term months in the constitution, the conven-
ton intended calendar months and conse-
ouently, that the act ofthe legislature was IN
constitutional and void. Thus would the de-
cisiou of one tribunal competent to decide the
question, and compelled to make a decision
before its action, be subject to reversal by an
} other and different tribunal, without any ap.
> peal or writ of error being provided to over
hauI the decision first made So palpable al
ii a6surditv cannot be tolerated for single IN
/ slant. 1t being once admitted that the pOtre.
T to decide whether the law had been published
/. Tor not in accordance with the constitution
belonged TO the legislature, and that they have
: once decided that question, the whole contro
I versv on this point is at an end The supreme
b Cont of the United States, in the case OF AT
4 redondo and others, have laid down the law
!, upon this question: clearly and distinctly, q
follows: = $3.50
> sit IS an universal principle that where poo
/ err or discretiou is delegated to any pubic o.
I'll ficer or tribunal over subject matter, and 10
exercise IS confided to hls or their discretion
The acts so done are binding and valid as 70 70.
4 | the subject matter. The only questions Whicl
s / can arise between an individual clalnahg
8 | right under the acts done, and the public, 9
= anv person denying its validity, are PoaCer 9
II he oficsr and 1rahS In the part. Al oIne
i questions are settled by the decision made Q
act done bg the tribunal officer whether exec
utiye. Legislative, judicial Or special, unless
+ anneaI Il provided fors or other REVISION
I sone apDeIlate or supervisory tribunals y pre-
{ scrribed b. law Peters &. 72V. s.ss.
5 Aua;n: The Supreme Court Of Masgachp
soffss &, the case al Perkins vs. Fairfield, nav
3 | hid down the rule broadly and clearly. = 2
question was a. 80 the validity @ asls 9. e g