The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1870-04-28

That het touched it with his pen was
wrong. Ie is homely old maxim, Two
wrongs never made q right" The era
sure, whilst it remains, cannot reach the
integrity of the Act; ''it has not the
effect to destroy its character or legal
effect" Greenl. Ev.. 566. The facts of
this investigation being developed, the
law, if law it be, continues presumed
to be lodged in every mans mind al
ready"
In "Angel aud Amcs on Corp" COL,
it is said: ga mdntldn,us lies merely to
command that to be done which ought
by law to be done, and not to order the
undoipg of that which ought not to be
n railway company to take the seal off
from the register of shareholders, on the
suggestion that it wns affixed without
authority and contrary to the provisions
of Statute" E.r pdrte Nash Is, q. B.
90.
come to the second proposition Of
the rule: That the Secretary be required
to give to the relntors a certified copy of
the Act as it was enrolled, ratified, and
approved, and placed in his Office. In
determining this, [ pass by the consider
alton of the danger involved by tho pre-
oedent of requiring nu officer to certify
from memory paper not in existence,
IA we'll as the consideration that the writ,
if granted, would be nugatory and una
vailing. Whether the REALTORS have the
legal right to have the certificate de.
manded, depends upon the conclusive
proposition whether the granting of tits
q clearly defined ministerial duty of the
office of the Secretary of State. This
determined nffirmativeiy, it must be as
certained whether, in the sound legal
discretion of the Court, the thing de-
manded would be "consonant with right,
justice, and good government"
In the Constitution, Art. 3, Sec. %, it
is provided that the duties of the Secre-
In the Statutes various duties are en-
gone, nothing in this point. We find,
however, in Petigru's Code, page 81,
note, that "the duties of the Secretary
of State are to be inferred from the fees
which are allowed him. and from the
penalties for official misconduct" and
tho law provides for this Office fee per
copy sheet for the copying of any writ
ing, and also fee for "a testimonial
with the great seal of the State" If the
law provided by special enactment for
the Secretary's custody of the enrolled
Acts, would regard it as nn inference
that he should, upon request, give to any
party in interest, q certified copy of any
Act on file, upon tender Of such fees.
AS it is, the c0SuS omiSsus is one of the
Legislature, and so far as this Court is
concerned, whatever may be, ia morals,
the duty of the Secretary consequent
upon his consent to keep custody of the
records, renders the duty, in its legal
character, not clearly defined and doubt
full; and because the right as to the GER
tificate is do"bJful, and the correspond
ing duty not clearly defined, the writ based
upon the second requirement of the rule
must also be denied. s Pit. 291.
This conclusion would be entertained
with something Of hesitancy, if it were
not fortified by considerations, touching
the propriety of the writ in this case, to
which, III the exercise of my discretion,
[ deem it proper to refer.
In Marbnry q. Madison, l Cranch ITO,
Chief Justice Marshall said: ''It is not
writ is directed, but the nature of the
thing to be done, that the proprielv or
Improperly of issuing IL aauuatlttnaus Is to
be determined"
Much of the learning OF the argument
in behalf of the REALTORS was directed to
the point that, the statute being record
of the highest dignity, and of the high
estiand most absolute proof-indeed. the
very low itself. as it was said-no aver
ment against it could be admitted. This,
as q rule Of evidence, is clearly es-
tablished, and applicable certainly when
ever such record is offered in evidence.
But is it applicable when tic deed is
impeachel for forgery or other fraud, or
even for mistake, when the integrity of
the record itself, as in this case, is the
matter in issue? If SO, would not the
argument prove too much for the reIa-
tors, and compel them to take the statute
as it now reads? But, whatever may be
the doctrine of the English law, it is an
established principle in this country that
it is competent for the Court to look be-
hind the printed statute to the Enrolled
Act, and behind the Enrolled Act to the
journals or other records OF the Legisla-
ture, to ascertain-not perhaps what the
law means-but, whether in conformity
with the prescribed forms of the Consti-
tuition or for whatever other reason, it
he in fact the law. Cooley, 1853, 154: 9