The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1858-11-20
For thu Gate CITY.
For the Gate City.
when the statutes ~ Last white r

Took Effect.
Having perused recently several articles in
the Journal, signed by "x.," in which it 10
claimed that the statutes of last session have
not taken effect from the fact that the Secre-
tary of State has net certified as to when they
we're distributed, as provided by sections %
and "a of the Code, wish to present few
reasons that lead me to dissent from the views
Of the writer, whom understand to be Judge
Mason. In the old Constitution OF this State
it is provided Art. 8, Sec. 27) that no law
" Of the General Assembly of public nature
"shall take effect until the same shall be
published and circulated in the several
" counties of this State by authority.n
The Code, See. %, provides that "such
" acts AS have not taken effect before, by vir-
" tue of other provisions of law, shall take
Select throughout the State on the first day
" of July following, and every act shall be
"presamed to have taken effect at that time
" unless the con frary appear as provided in
"fhs following too sections" The snbsc-
quent sections referred to provide that in
case the laws are not distributed to oil the
organized counties by the FIRST day of July,
the Secretary shall make and file certificate
stating on what day they were deposited in
the last county, and they shall take effect on
the tenth day after the day on which they are
so deposited. In the old Constitution it will
be observed that there is no certain time fixed
when the laws should take effect. They were
to take effect when circulated "by authority
that is, when circulated in such manner as
might be provided by the General Assembly.
Hence the necessity, MS well as propriety, Of
the foregoing provisions of the Code.
But the new Constitution is somewhat dif-
ferent from the old one in this particular. 1t
provides Art. 3, SEQ. 26) that "no law Of
the General Assembly passed at regular
" session Of public nature shall take effect
"until the fourth day of July next after the
"passage thereof" The new Constitution
repeats proprsa vigors 30 much Of the previous
legislation as is inconsistent Herewith. 1t is
question of serious doubt whether BY fair
of general nature passed at a regular SEES
sion do not take effect absolutely on the fourth
day of July, unless they have previously ta-
ken effect by publication in the newspapers.
Having provided that they shall not take ef-
feet until certain day, by implication at
least 1t would seem to follow that they were
then to 60 into operation. II such should be
the construction given to this provision Of
the Constitution, il would necessarily work
repeal Of section % Of the Code, since the
two sections would manifestly conflict with
each other.
But viewing the question for the present in
the opposite light, and conceding for the pur-
pose Of the argument that there is NO conflict
between the provisions Of the Code already
referred to and the Constitution, and that
those sections are, therefore, still in force,
yet am fully persuaded that the conclusions
Of "X." are equally erroneous. 1t will be
conceded, no doubt, that section % OF the
Code is SO far changed by the Constitution as
to fix the fourth in lieu Of the first day of
July as the time when the laws take effect. -
Then since the Secretary OF State has no,
| certified, as provided by sections % and "A
OF the Code, it will be presumed tina, the laws
were circulated and took effect on the fourth
day OF July by virtue Of that part of section
y which provides that every act shall be
presumed TO hare taken effect at that time,
unless the contrary appear, as provided in
sections % and "a. In regard to the laws of
last winter, the contrary does not appear, as
provided in the foregoing two sections, and,
therefore, those laws are declared by the
Code itself to be in force from and after the
fourth day of July last.
I am Of the opinion (though as intimated
II is question Of some doubt) that the Con-
sti,ution and the Code are not inconsistent in
those provisions with each other--that it was
the object Of the Constitution to tix time
before which the laws should not take effect
in lieu Of fixing the time when such should
be the case. But view the question in eithe,
/ light the laws of last winter must be held ia
have taken effect on the fourth day OF July
II will be remembered that In 1851 the laws
including the new Code, were not, in fact
distributed until long after the first day OF
July, and the same question was nooted BY
some members Of the legal profession. The
Secretary Of State, Mr.. McCleary, failed to
certify to the time when the laws were in fact
distributed, believing, no doubt, that it would
be cause Of serious embarrassment il the
laws should be held not to have taken efec,
on the first day Of July. In Jefferson county
some one, entertaining the same views a.
Judge Mason, filed an information against
the newly elected county Judge to Dust him
from office on the ground that the law crca-
ting the office had not, in fact, taken effect.
Tor the reason that the laws had not been
distributed. The cause was tried before
Judge kaapp, who, very justly, held that it
was improper to introduce evidence to show
when the laws were Observation-Disclosures since
there Was no certificate or the Secretary Of
State rs TO when the laws were distributed
that the law took effect on the first day OF
July. So little doubt was there in regard to
the question that helieve This 80 tha -,