Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1850-1854, 1850-09-13
SUPREME COURT ON THE LAW PRO-
VIDHNG FOR PUBLISHING THE RE.
VISED STATUTES.

at the last sitting of the Supreme Court, invol-
wing claim on our part for balance due on sta
tutes received by the state. The following is
the opinion of the court OH the constitutionality
of the famous Statute Printing Bill:
1T is said that the law under which these
books were published, is in violation of Sec Is,
Art. A, of the Constitution This provision con-
sidered alone, includes all mere mechanical
printing required for the use of the state in all its
departments.
Sec. 81, Art. of the constitution, directs
that the Legislature shall provide for the speedy
publication of all statute laws, and of such judi
cial decisions as may be deemed expedent. This
provision we do not regard as dependant upon or
necessarily connected with the provision in re-
lation to printing While it is true that the en-
ployment of the art of printing is the best means
adjudication, still publication cannot be confined
to the limited Specification of mere printing; but
comprehends the exercise of additional labor and
skill. This provision implies a discretion to be
exercised in the method of publication for in
stance, that the general laws cannot be in force
until published, shall be published in the public
journals, that being the most speedy method or
in pamphlet form, that being most convenient for
many purposes; or even by proclamation at the
",
that the whole body of the laws and The decisions
of the Supreme Court, shall be published in the
more permanent form of bound book All
these would be different forms OF publication, and
all would answer the constitutional requirements
and it is obvious enough that in many instances
the object could not be accomplished under a
contract for mere mechanical printing"
Thus it seems, according to the decision of the
highest tribunal of the state, the law providing
for the publication of the Revised Statutes, was
not unconstitutional. To expect, however, the
newspapers that employed most of their time for
a.year in abusing the Legislature, the governor,
ourself, and every one having any connection
with the matter, to take back any of that abuse,
Or make any amende, is expecting too much: but
we do expect the people will now see clearly
through the selfish malice, flowing solely out of
disappointed pecuniary hopes, that originated
these attacks. But enough on this point; the
decision in this particular is as we supposed il
would be, and we have no doubt the sober second
thought of the people will do justice to all the
parties.
The decision of the court however, was ad-
verse TO our claim; first, that the Governor had
a right under the law to fix the price, and it was
our business to inquire of him what he meant to
do not his to inform u.s. Second that the legis-
lature having made an appropriation in full and
we having received it, our claim was barred.
We do not know but these are sufficient
grounds for the decision in legal point of view
but we supposed the Supreme Court, under the
late law Of the Legislature, had an equity juris-
diction, or we should not have appealed to it.
With reference TO the first point, it is matter
notorious that the Legislature which passed the
law nor any one else, held the idea that the Go
vernon had any discretion in the premises The
whole spirit of the law contradicts such an idea.
How then could we be expected to inquire of the
Governor with regard to that with which we had
no idea he had any business. And if he enter
tanned different opinion, is it unreasonable that
he should have minated it to us, and given us
a chance to escape the ruinaiion he meditated
We say it is preposterous, and will not stand the
test one moment OF common honesty, that we
should be put under bonds of ten thousand dol
lars to complete the books in certain style and
deliver them, and then the Governor possess the
power to pay US less than the cost of the work,
or indeed, if he chose, nothing.
AS to the second point, we doubt whether it
will be considered as strictly proper on the part
Of Legislature, TO create by one act an urgent
necessity for person to have money, and by
another to take advantage Of that necessity to
compel him to take half price. 1t is hardly to
be expected that work Of that magnitude could
be got up, and the persons doing it, wait two
years before getting any portion of their pay
We should have been compelled to take the ap.
propriaton had it been even more unjust than it
was, certain that in the light of justice and equ-
ty it would not bar any further claim we might
possess.