The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1871-08-21

IoIms-Ui- ptuceeuinK1-tortn fecOtu ,
they sISIAot of ,nscessity, neither have
they always been They are Ike the
dockets of the pronotaries OF the partic.
ular to the Kings patents. And so it
was held that the Court could not go
behind the authentieatioH IF the act,
and it 10 believed that this case has
ruled the English courts from that time
to the present. va. f-1-
The rule established in England has
been followed by the courts OF last re-
sort in several of the United States.
as will appear from the following casee
ED vs., Gorham, 20 Connecticut Re
ports, p. S. 5 ',.,I To-. ~. IL
Green vs.. Weller, 80 Mississippi Re,
ports, p. $50. .---..-. -.
Duncombe vs. Prindle, IL Iowa Re
ports, p. !. ISL iii ! .l.if..'Hs
The State vs. Young, 80 New Jersey
Law Reports, p. 20. -
Speer VS.. Plankroad Company, %
Pennsylvania State Reports, p. 376.
Evans vs.. Browne, 80 Indiana Re
ports, p. 5l4. 49, ... r.. ...l ...
But in none of these cases does it ap-
pear that the Constitution of the State
in which decided requires the vote on
the passage of the bill to be taken by
yeas and nays and entered on the jour.
nal, and requiring a certain number of
votes to pass bill. ....
In the case of Purdy vs. The People,
4 Hill 34S, it was decided by the Court
of Errors of New York that the jour
nails kept in the two houses of the Leg
islature may be resorted to in ascertain
ing whether an act was passed by a vote
of two-thirds.
1t was decided by the Supreme Court
OF Michigan, in the case of The People
VS.. Maboney, IL Michigan Rep. 4Sl,
that as the Courts are bound judicially
to take notice Of what the law is, it is
their right as we'll as duty to take no
tice not only Of the printed statute
books, but also of the journals Of the
two houses, to enable them to determine
whether all the constitutional requisites
to the validity of a statute have been
complied with.
The same doctrine is held by the
Justices of Supreme Court of New
Hampshire, reported in IS New Hamp-
shire, Rep $40.
The case Of Spangler vs.. Jacoby,
IA Illinois Rep. 297. is more nearly in
point than any of the cases found. The
Constitution Of Illinois provides that:
Each house shall keep a journal of
it's proceedings" "On the final pas
sage OF all bills, the vote shall be by
ayes and noes, and shall be entered on
the journals; and no bill shall become
a law without the concurrence Of ma.
jority Of all the members elect in each
house.
The Courts say: "a majority OF all
the members elected to either branch
of the General Assembly must concur
in the final passage of bill. This is
indispensable to its becoming a law.
Without it, the act has no more force than
the paper upon which it is written.
The vote must be taken by ayes and
noes The Constitution presctibes this
as the test, by which to determine
whether the requisite number Of men,
bers vote in the affirmative. The vote
must also he entered on the journal.
The office of the journal is to record
the proceedings of the house, and au-
thenticate and preserve the same. 1t
must appear on the face of the journal
that the bill passed by constitutional
majority. These directions are all
clearly imperative. They are expressly
enioined by the fundamental law, and
cannot be dispensed with by the Legis-
lature."
This case was reviewed and affirmed
in the case of The People vs. Starne, 80
Ill. Rep. p. III.
1t was held in the Supreme Court of
California, in the case of Fowler We.
Pierce, 2 California Rep. p. l65, that the
Court may 60 behind the record
evidence OF statute, and in
quire whether it was passed or
approved in accordance with the
Constitution. The Court say. ave
are called upon to decide whether the
Courts of the land to whom belong the
guardiansl ip and exposition of the laws
and Constitution, have power 10 60 be-
hind the act itself to inquire whether
the Legislature, or the executive as a
component part of the legislative
power, have, in passing or approving
such act, violated or disregarded the
mode pointed out by the organic law Of
the land. If such matters
cannot be inquired into, the wholesome
restrictions which the Constitution i'm
poses on legislative and executive &C
ton become a dead letter, and Courts
would be compelled to administer laws
made in violation Of private and public
rights, without power to interpose.
The Supreme Court of the United
States had this question in the case Of
Gardner We. the Collector, 6 Wallace,
D. 400, and the following language is
found in the opinion Of the Court in
that case: "How can it be held that
the judges, upon whom is imposed the
burden Of deciding what the legislative
body has done, when it is in dispute,
are debarred from resorting to the
written record which that body makes
of its proceedings in regard to any par
ticular statute. We are
of opinion, therefore, on principle as
well as authority, THAT whenever q ques-
ton arises in court of law of the ex-
istence OF statute, or of the time when
a statute took effect, or OF the precise
terms of statute, the judges who are
called upon to decide it have right to
resort to any source OF information
which in its nature is capable Of con-
veyiug to the judicial mind q clear and
satisfactory answer to such question; ;
always seeking first for that which in
it's nature is most appropriate, unles the
nositiye law has enacted a different