Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-05-05
"oF COURSE. .
shaclxelford Refuses TO Crant an In
junction upOn the County Commits
siOners.
The Almighty Legislature and the In.
feriOF Courts.
The Decision Rendered Yesterday.

Chancellor Shackeiord yesterday refused
to grant the application of the County Court
Tor an injunction upon the usurping Coun-
ty Commissioners. The following is a
complete copy OF his decision:
| W. A. Glenn and Others fl. b. Grant and
others. Commissioner.
This Is an application on the part Of the
eomplaiDauts for an injuetion to prevent
the defendants from exercising The office of
| County oInmissioners for the county of
Davidson, TO which Office they we're elected
in pursuance Of an act passed the llth Of
| March, 1868, and an amended act passed
| 18th Of March, 1868, creating the Office and
| relieving the Justices of the county from
| the further duty Of holding the Quarterly
| and Quorum Court of Davidson county,
and yesting all the rights, powers and du-
ties Of the Justices in holding said court,
| in the Commissioners. The bill was an
swered, but the only question now present.
ed is the preliminary motion for an injunc-
| ton. 1t is not necessary, at this stage of
the proceedings to discuss at length the
| questions involved. The only question now
presented is, does the bill exhibit such
state of facts as will authorize the active
interposition of the court TO prevent the
defendants from the exercise Of the powers
vested in them by the acts aforesaid.
The first question for my consideration
arises upon the amendment TO the act
passed on the 18Th of March, 1868. By
the amendment the number of Commits
sioners was reduced from five to three, and
the time for the election having expired by
the provisions Of the act of the 18th of
March, 1868, was by the provisions Of the
amended act, fixed for the second Satur-
day in April, 1868. This act, it is insisted,
was an amendment to an act wholly foreign
to the amendment not german to the bill,
and was only passed by one reading in each
branch of the Legislature, and under the
provisions of article II, section Is, of the
Constitution of the State, it is imperative
and void
3D. 1t is insisted that the act was not
signed by the Speakers Of the two Houses
until after the adjournment of the Legisla-
ture, consequently their functions as
Speakers had ceased, and they had no au-
thority to sign the act; it is therefore not
the law of the land under the provisions
of the Constitution and the article above
referred TO. These are grave questions
and Of great public importance, effecting,
as they do, the legislation of the State and
the power of the courts to inquire into the
validity of acts of the Legislature thus
passed. The question is an open one in
this State and | am not, therefore, con-
trolled in my views by the decision of the
courts of the State, and in the determining
of the question must take into cOnsidera-
ton the relative functions Of the different
4 Al
ment and the relation they bear to each,
and how far they are independent, acting
within the sphere assigned them under the
Constitution, aud see the legal effect that
may result from holding that the courts
have the right to look into the proceed.
ings of the Legislature in the passage of
laws.
BY the provisions of article 2, section
of the Constitution, tits provided: Every
bill shall be read once on three different
days, and be passed each time in the House
where it originated before transmission to
the other. No bill shall become law I'M
til it shall be read and passed on three diff
ferent days in each House, and signed by
the Speakers" The evident intention Of
the provisions Of the Constitution was to
prevent hasty legislation. There is nothing
ambiguous in the section. It's mandate |
is plain, and members Of the Legislature |
before they can sit in the honorable body |
must take an oath to support the Constitu-
ton. They constitute the laW-making |
power of the State, and their acts if not |
inhibited by the Constitution are binding |
on the courts, being a coordinate branch !
Of the government. Can the courts look /
into their proceedings to see if the acts
were passed in pursuance of the Constitu-
ton ? The act of March IL, 1868, and the
amended act of the 18th of March, are fled, |
and appear to have been enrolled and /
signed by the respective Speakers of both /
Houses, and are properly certified by the /
Secretary of State, the proper custodian,
as provided by law. The courts are
bound to take Judicial cognizance of all
laws passed by the Legislature, but they /
cannot look behind the law and see
whether it was passed according to
the requirement Of the section
of the Constitution now referred to.
The Legislature being coordinate branch /
of the government, and the law making |
power being vested in them, every pre-
sumption is to be given to law when |
signed by the Speakers and deposited with /
the Secretary of State. He is the custo- /
dian of the acts, and the courts have no /
power in this State tolook behind the duly |
authenticated enrolled act, for the purpose
of impeaching the validity of the act. If |
the Legislature act in violation of the Con-
stitution in the passage Of a law, and the /
provisions of that law as appears on the
face Of the act is not inhibited by the Con-
slitution, there is no remedy. The power
is with the people, and it can only be
changed or altered by the power that Gre
ated the body,,,in their Legislative capacity. |
To hold that the courts have the power to /
look into the acts and proceedings of the
Legislative body in the passage of acts, af-
ter they are signed by the respective Speak
ers and enrolled az required by law, would |
render all legislation uncertain; different /
courts and juries might determine the /
question differently. The validity of laws
wonld depend upon the authority of the /
journals and upon parole proof Higher
evidence would be given that authority,
than is given TO the solemn acts of both |
Houses by the signature of the Speaker. 1t |
is known that the reading Of the journal |
is often dispensed with, and the validity of |
laws might depend upon the act Of the |
designed or intended in making the iour-
nal of either House evidence, that the |
validity of law could be properly called |
in question by the introduction of the
journals TO show that the law did not pass
IA required by the Constitution. | think |
that sound public policy requires that all |
acts, when signed by the Speakers of the |
respective Houses, and deposited with the
legal custodian, the Secretary of State,
become the law of the land The courts |
8 hOuld not he permitted to go behind |
the duly authenticated and enrolled act, |
and examine the journals or hear parole |
evidence for the purpose of impeaching
the validity Of an act The signing and |
enrolling Of an act, and the depositing the |
same in the office of the Secretary of |
State is conclusive The signing Of an act /
is immaterial. Ii is the passage of the |
act that creates the law, and when signed /
it relates back, as held by the Supreme /
Court in the case reported in Meigs and |
Sd Coldwell, bat the principles before dis
cussed are applicable, You cannot inquire |
at what time the act was signed, if deposi- |
ted and regularly signed by the speakers |
under the provisions of law. | am sus- |