Daily Mississippi clarion and standard. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1866, 1866-07-03


expressions of the legislative will, and the
most urgent in their character, would be
constantly liable to be defeated by the slight
est omission, or departure from the estab-
lished phraseology. No possible good could
be achieved by such strictness, and the
greatest evil might result from it. There
are no exclusive words in the constitution
regulating the use of any other language,
and we think the intention will be best
effectuated by holding the clause to be di-
reetory only. 1t is necessary that every law
should show on its face the authority by
which it is adopted and promulgated, and
that it should clearly appear, that it is in
tended by the legislative power that enact
ed it, that it should take effect as a law
These conditions being fulfilled, all that is
absolutely necessary is expressed. The word
resolved is as potent to declare the legis-
lative will as the word enacted" 1t is true
that resolution may or may not take effect
as a law, depending upon the occasion and
object of its use. 1t may be resorted to as a
vehicle to convey the opinions or wishes of
the Legislature on any subject, without pre-
scribing any rule of conduct to be observed.
But whenever a joint resolution does under
take to lay down a rule of conduct, for any
portion of the people of the State, it becomes
a law, and will take effect as such, notwith-
standing the use of the word resolved" in
its style, instead of the word "enacted"-
The requirement of the constitution is there
by substantially complied with, and the will
Of the Legislature sufficiently declared.
Joint resolutions, having all the force and
effect of laws, are common III the legislative
practice of this State, and are to be found
among the acts of almost every session, and
applicable to almost every variety of sub
jects. Appropriations of money from the
Treasury to various Objects have frequently
been passed in this form, and no objection
has ever been raised to their validity. They
are expressly recognized by the constitution,
which provides that they shall be presented
to the Governor, and be approved by him be-
fore they take effect, or, if disapproved, shall
be repassed by both Housessaccording to the
rule and limitations prescribed in case of a
bill (Article 5, sec. 49, By the seperate
rules of each branch of the Legislature, they
are required, as acts, and addresses, to be
signed by the presiding officer; and by the
joint rules of the two Houses they are re-
quired to be enrolled, examined and signed,
and presented to the Governor for approval,
i'll the same manner, and by the same COM
mittee, as in the case of bills. Though gem
orally, but not universally, confined to adj
ministrative, and local or temporary matters.
they form nevertheless one of the known and
recognized modes of legislation.
The Constitution of the United States con-
tains the very same provisions in reference
to the presentment of bills, orders, resolu-
| tions, and votes to the President for his APP
| proval, that are found i'll the State COnstitu-
| ton. In reference to bills" this approval
| is necessary, "before it becomes a law" and
| in reference to orders, resolutions and votes,
| ''before the same shall take effect" upon
which a distinction was attempted to be
| founded in the argument. Yet the constant
| practice of the Congress has been to enact
| important measures of legislation, chiefly OF
| the character before referred to, by joint re-
| solutions. Both constitutions contain the
| same clause, that no money shall be drawn
| from the Treasury, but in consequence of ap,
| preparations made by lar" And the con.
| slant practice, both in Congress and the Leg
| islature, has been to make important apprO
| priations of public money from the Treasury
| by joint resolutions, thereby showing that il
the usage and practice of these assemblies, a
resolution is regarded as law, and is in all
respects of equal force and effect.
Such a practical Interpretation of the con
stitution, sanctioned by long usage and ac
quiescence, and hitherto, so far as we car
discover, wholly unquestioned, is entitled tC
great weight, and ought not to be departed
from, unless under circumstances of the most
imperative character.
The constitution of u number of the States
contain the provision that Every law ell
acted by the Legislature shall embrace but
one subject, and that shall be expressed il
the title;" and among these States are Loui
siana and California. In the construction o.
this clause. the courts of the former State
have held it to be improper to give it too
rigorous and technical n construction. BY
following in its application the rules of
nice and fastidious verbal criticism, the ac
ton of the Legislature would often be frus
trated, without fulfilling the intentions o
of the trainers of the constitution La
| Ann, 800, s. 40. In California this section o
| he mi IS led 90 lV
tory. Such was the cOntemporaneOus expo
sitiOn adopted and acquiesced in by the Leg
islature, and tacitly assented to by the courts
Washington VS., hurry, California, 36S-
These observations, we think, justly apply
to the clause of our constitution prescribing
the enacting clause of laws, which NJ
doubt intended to promote uniformity anC
precision, without being designed as a con
ditiOn, upon the strict and literal fulflmen
of which, the validity of the law should de
pend
3 In support of the second objection i
was urged, that as the constitution does no
mention resolutions, in prescribing the form
and ceremonies to be observed in the passag
of bills, therefore resolution is not of equa
dignity with bill, and cannot be employees
to repeal general law.
We cannot perceive the force of this posi
ton. All Legislative acts, duly enrolled
signed by the presiding officers of bot
|
| appears to us, must stand on an equal foot
ing as to dignity, and must equally prevail
as the act of the sovereign power of til
State, whether they be enacted" or Onl
resolved"
1t was insisted, also, that by joint rule c
the two Houses of the Legislature, joint II
solutions are only required to be read on tw
several days, and therefore, the court mus
presume that this resolution was passed a
, ter two readings only, and hence did not b,
come law. On the production of the rule
of the Legislature, no such rule was foun
: to exist, and the foundation of the argumer
fell to the ground. But if the facts had bee
: otherwise, we could not have INDUCED til
presumption insisted upon, for in the case
: Green VS.. Weller, 80 Miss, $50, in referenc
to this very question, the court, after Stain
the provisions of the constitution requirin
: bills to be signed by the presiding officers
the two Houses, and to be approved an
J signed by the Governor, and the statutor
regulation that all bills thus authenticate
shall be deposited in the Office of the Seer
tary of State, say, "when an act of the LIE,
/ isature has passed through these form
which are shown upon its face to have bee
complied with, and it is filed in the Secret
3 rvs Office, it becomes a record, and has a
| the legal incidents of a record, by the rule
: of the common law; and all the effect
evidence of the authenticity and validity
e the act, which the parliament rolls of sta
y. utes had in England" And again, sit mu
3 of necessity have been intended that the a,
0 so sanctioned, and required to be preserves
. shall constitute a record, with the inciden
, appertaining to such record at eommo
c law, importing absolute verify which no ev
Z dence is allowed to contradict, and cor
r pliance with all the forms necessary to i
+ validity" Having established the propos
t ton that the act thus authenticated ar
g preserved is record, and upon settled pri
= ciples of evidence, incapable of contradi
: ton, the court go on to rule, that if tn
: were not so, yet this court cannot take j
s dicial notice of the journals of the Legisl
: ture in order to ascertain the true state
4 facts.
Y 3. In the third place it is insisted that ii
t resolution, if otherwise valid, would be vo
g as impairing the obligation of the contra
between the State and the relator, and ia
ing away his vested rights.
: To determine this question correctly, it
e necessary to understand precisely what it
7 that the Legislature has. undertaken to d
: Before the passage of the resolution of Oct
Der 25, 1865, it was made the duty of Il
Q Auditor to examine, state, settle, and audi
J, all accounts, claims and demands against ii
l. State, arising under any act or resolution
n the Legislature, quitting acts and resol
t tions on the same footing as lsws,) and
g grant to any claimant authorized to recei'
e the same, a warrant, &c This was a reg
It lation, not especially for the benefit
y the claimants, but part of the syste
for thesafe keeping and disbursement of tt
n public money, providing check upon Il
l. discussing officers, and securing accura,
and correctness in their account. This pr
9 vision the Legislature proposed to repes
e and to suspend entirely the issuance of wa
rants, until time was allowed to consider Il
II condition of the public Treasury, and to {
If tablish policy to be pursued thereafter,
Il was clearly within the ordinary and legi
Il mate powers of the Legislature to adopt til
repeating act, unless some right had vest.
ir under some contract of the State. that wen
4 be impaired by such repeal, and in that eve