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

expressions of the legislative viii, ana the
most urgent in their character, would be
constantly liable to be defeated by the sifgEt-
est omission, or departure from the estab-
Hshed phrageology No possible good could
be achieved by such strlctness, and tne
greatest evil might result from II lheIe
are no exclusive words in the constitution
regulating the use of any other language
and we think the intention VIII De pet
effectuated by holding the clause 10 DC u
Teetoy only 1t is necessary that every Ia"
slo1Id show on its face the authority Dy
which il is adopted and promulgated ana
that II should clearly appear, that II Is H.
tended bv the legislative power that enact
,d II that il should take effect as law
These conditions being fulfilled, all that Il
absolutely necessary Is expressed ne worn
resolved" is as potent to declare the legs
Iarive will as the word enacted" 1t Is true
that a resolution may or may not take enect
A. a law depending upon the occasion and
object of its use 1t may be TesoTted to as
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 Law down rule of conduct, for any
portion of the people of the State, II becomes
a law and viii take effect as such, notwlth-
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
iects. 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
va9 "a he
which provides that they shall be presented
to the Governor, and be approved by him be-
fore they take effect, or, II disapproved, shall
be repassed by both Housess to the
rule and limitations prescribed in case of
hill ARTICLE ,, sec. 10 By the separate
rules of each branch of the Legislature they
are REQUIRED as aets, and addresses, to be
signed by the presiding officer and by the
Joint rules of the two Houses, they are re-
qured to be enrolled, examined and signed,
and presented to the Governor for approval,
in the same manner, and by the same com
mittee as in the case of bills. Though gen
orally, but not universally. confined to ad-
miHistrative 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, TesOln-
tions, and votes to the President for his ap-
proval, that are found in the State ConStitu-
ton In reference to bills" this approval
is necessary, before it becomes 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 APP
preparations made by lar" And the con-
slant practice, both in Congress and the Leg
islatuTe, has been to make important appro-
priations of public money from the Treasury,
by joint resolutions, thereby showing that in
the usage and practice of these assemblies, a
| resolution is regarded as a law, and is in all
respects of equal force and effect.
Such practical Interpretation of the con-
| stitutiOn, sanctioned by long usage and aC-
| quiescence, and hitherto, so far as we can
| discover, wholly unquestioned, is entitled TO
| great weight, and ought not to be departed
| from, unless under circumstances of the most
! imperative character.
| The constitution of a number of the States
| contain the provision that Every law en-
| acted by the Legislature shall embrace but
| one subject, and that shall be expressed in
| the title" and among these States are LOui-
siana and California. In the construction OF
! this clause. the courts of the former State
| have held it to be improper to give it too
| rigorous and technical a construction BY
| following in its application the rules of a
| nice and tastidious verbal criticism, the ac-
| ton of the Legislature would often be frus-
| trated, without fulfilling the intentions OF
| of the trainers of the constitution. La.
| Ann 329, s. 40 In California this section OF
the constitution is regarded as merely direc-
| tory Such was the contempOraneous expo
| sition adopted and acquiesced in by the Leg
/ is1a fap to by-r no
| Washington VS., Mury, California, 3SS-
| These observations, think, Justly apply
| To the clause of our constitution prescribing
| the enacting clause of laws, which was no
| doubt intended TO promote uniformity and
| precision, without being designed as a con.
| dition. upon the strict and literal fuIhlment
| of which, the validity of the law should de
| pend.
2 In support of the second objection il
| was urged that as the constitution does moi
mention resolutions, in prescribing the form
| and ceremonies to be observed in the passage
| of bills, therefore a resolution is not of equa
dignity with a bill, and cannot be employed
TO repeal a general law.
We cannot perceive the force of this posi-
ton. All legislative acts, duly enrolled
signed by the presiding officers of boil
| Houses, and approved by the Governor, i
| 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 tn
State, whether they be enacted" or Onl
resolved"
1t was insisted, also, that by joint rule O
the two Houses of the Legislature, joint re
solutions are only required to be read on tw
several days, and, therefore, the court mus
presume that this resolution was passed al
ter two readings only, and hence did not be
come a law. On the production of the rule
of the Legislature, no such rule foun
to exist, and the foundation of the argumen
| fall tn he he r. hnn
otherwise we could not have indulged tn
presumption insisted upon, for in the case q
Green vs.. Weller, 81 Miss $50, in referenc
to this very question, the court after Stain
the provisions of the constitution Tequirin
bills to be signed by the presiding officers Z
the two Houses, and TO be approved an
| 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 Les
islature has passed through these ferm
which are shown upon its face to have bee
complied with, and it Is filed in the Secrets
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 a
evidence of the authenticity and validity
? the act, which the parliament rolls of sta
3. utes had in England" And again, lit mus
3 | of necessity have been intended that the az
} so sanctioned and required to be preserved
!
f, | appertaining to such a record at eOmmo
9 | law. importing absolute verify which no ev
t | dence is allowed TO contradict, and con
r | pliance with all the forms necessary to il
7 | validity" Having established the propOs
{ | ton that the act thus authenticated an
2 | preserved, is record, and upon settled pril
/. eiples of evidence, incapable of contradi
: ton, the court go on TO rule, that if tn
: were not so, yet this court cannot take il
5 dicial notice OF the journals of the Legisl
I ture in order to ascertain the true state
l facts.
= 8. In the third place it is insisted that til
t resolution, if otherwise valid. would be vol
e as impairing the obligation of the eontraC
between the State and the relatOr. and tai
ing away his vested rights.
= To determine this question correctly, it
e necessary TO understand precisely what it
r that the Legislature has undertaken to d
: Before the passage of the resolution of Oct
Der p, 1865, il made the duty of I'll
e Auditor TO examine, state settle. and audi
:, all accounts, claims and demands against I'll
/ State, arising under any act or resolution
the Legislature, quitting acts and resol
L lions on the same footing as laval and
9 grant TO any claimant authorized to receiN
e the same, warrant, &c. This was a reg
{ lation, not especially for the benefit
y the claimants, but part of the syste1
for theeafe keeping and disbursement OF I'll
n public money. providing a check upon IL
! discussing officers, and securing aceuraC
and correctness in their account. This DIT
Q vision the Legislature proposed TO repea
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 e
# tablish policy to be pursued thereafter.
Il was clearly within the ordinary and legit
Il mate powers of the Legislature to adopt tn