The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1859-01-24
NUMBER 149.
directors, &c, hadsbefore and at the time of
their election, and their pretended organi-

tEeiF election, and their pretended orpani-
zatioa Is branch boards and hank boards.
fei knowledge of all the frauds. &c, alleg-
ed N the complsint., Stii dis not arsrred
that these persons, or any of them. were
stockholders in The bank when It became a
corporation, or parties in the interest when
this suit was commenced. For aueht that
appears, the ownership OF the stock original.
" subscribed may have all CHANGED hands
and those who did subscribe under the su.
pervision of the sub-comrnissioners NAV mot
now hold any stock in the operation II
cannot, therefore, be intended that the nre-
sent stockholders had notice of the rnannar
In which the subscriptions were originally
made. But suppose they had such notice.
1t would be no reason why the State should
complain. As we have seen, the stock was
taken under the superintendence of her own
agents-the requisite amount was subscrib-
ed--and, in addition, the corporation stands
just as 1t would have stood had the subscrip-
ton been regularly made. Through the
fraudulent conduct of the sub-commission-
ers, the persons named, and others may
have been depriyedsof the right. of subscrib-
ing for stock but these persons are not
complaining. When they do complain, it
viii then De q proper inquiry, whether the
law AFFORDS them remedy for the injury
which they have sustained. Weideem the
iacts set forth in this paragraph insufficient
70 constitute cause of action. sll ~
The second and fourth paragraphs pre-
sent the same question: and will there
fore, be considered as being within the same
rule OF decision The second AYERS that the
act Incorporating the bank was not passed
BY q majority of all the members of each
branch OF the legislature that two of the
members ofsthe House of Representatives,
viz ANDREW Humphreys and james Wood,
whose names appear in the journal of the
house as being present and voting for the
bill on its final pas sage, after the Governors
veto, were not present, and did not vote
on such final passage-the names of these
members being fraudulently recorded in said
journal. And the fourth alleges. that on
the passage of the bill in the house before
it was vetoed, James McAxyray, a member.
whose name appears in the Journal recorded
in faver of it's passage, did not in fact vote
in its favor, but voted in the negative
and agains. it; that his name was and ia
recorded in the journal by mistake, fraud or
corruption, as in favor of the bill ami that
the bill, on its passage, did not receive a
majority OF the members elected to said
house, there being only fifty votes recorded
In its favor ON its passage, exclusive of the
name of AcMtrray.
The facts thus alleged, raise the Question
whether the journals of the House of the
General Assembly can be contradicted or
impeached on the ground of mistake or
fraud. The affirmative of this inquiry can
not, in our opinion, be maintained. Art 4,
7 -nf l. 49,
to keep journal OF itsproceedings, and pub
lish tie same. This journal must be held
conclusive evidence of the facts which ap-
pear on its face; because it must be presum-
ed that the members as body & lHER insRected il il
journal of the proceedings. As well
might evidences be received to contradict q
statute, to show that it contained certain
provisions inserted through mistake, as TO
contradict an entry made upon the Journal
The house keeping the journal is the only
tribunal by which it can be corrected, and
until corrected by such authority it must be
considered conclusive as to the facts which
it contains. @
We must therefore, hold that the mem
bers alleged to have been absent when the
bill passed over the Governors veto, were
present and voted as averred in the jour-
nal; and that McMurray did ote in favor
of the bill on its final passage in the house.
By the fifth paragraph certain provisions
of the act are alleged to be unconstitutional,
which are thus pointed out: l. 1t exempts
from taxation the capital stock of the bank
for municipal purposes. 2. 1t gives the
bank lien on the capital stock of all stock
holders for all debts bona ,fde due &c, al
| though it declares such stock personal pro-
perty and subjects-it to be sold on execution
against the owner-thereby giving the bank
a privilege not accorded to other citizens
8. 1t authorizes indirectly the suspension of
specie payments by the bank by suspendng
| ell suits, &C., against any branch, when the
directors of the bank may suspend such
branch-thereby creating a special stay OF
execution, &c. 4. 1t limits the number OF
branches to twenty, and not less than hf-
| teen, in the discretion of the commissioners,
daclaring counties wherein branch Of the
State bank is already established entitled to
branch in such county-thereby comforting
privilege on citizens and classes of citizens
which belongs equally to all citizens.
An act of the legislature may be valid in
part and void in part. 1t follows that, were
the provisions to which the paragraph refer:
| StTlChcu Oui vi tuS dSt1 tuC vi lDt
corporation would not be affected. Suppose
then, that they are in conflict with the con-
stitution, their being so would furnish nc
ground for declaring the whole act void, OF
enjoining proceedings under it.
The third paragraph AYERS that the bill il
question, was not read by sections on thret
several days in each house; that two-third
Of neither house, where it was pending, dit
dispense with the rule requiring every bill
to be 30 read; nor was any emergency dc
clared, &c. There was answer to this para
graph, to which the plaintiff demurred; bu
the demurrer was overruled. The paragraph
, and answer thus noticed, each profess t
show, by reference to the journals of bot
houses, the legislative history of the bi
| | from its introduction till its final passage
} The facts, believed to be material, are these
The bill originated in the Senate. 1t wa
, introduced on the 3lst of January, 1885,
when the rules, by vote of yeas and nay
! were dispensed with, and it was read frs
time by its title. Afterwards on the sam
day, the rules were again dispensed with, b
vote of yeas and nays, and it was read
second time by its title. On the 7th q: Eel
r ruary, the bill was referred to a committe
7 who on the 18th Of that month, reported
e back to the Senate with amendments, whe