Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-03-21
UxOossrIrUruoNAn LDcIsLArIoN.


Col. Colyar in favor of the constitutionaliiy
of the passage of the tipping bill. Wepub-
lish this argument this morning, and also
the protest OF Mr.. Lindsey against the
constitutionslity of the passage of the bill.
This is an important subject, and win well
bear discussion. In what we have to say,
we shall make no reference to the merits of
the bill, nor to the constitutionality of
its provisions, nor to the power of
the courts to inquire into the
manner of its passage. Our discussion
is solely as to. the constitutionality of the
mode and manner in which the bill was
passed. We repeat that its passage in the
manner in which it was passed was in vio-
lation of Section Is of Article II of the con-
stitution which declares:
"Every bill shall be read once on three
different days and be passed each time in
the House where 1t originated before trans
mission to the other. No bill shall become
law until it shall have been read and pass
ed on three different days in each House,"
We have examined the case of Miller d
Gibson rs. the Stdte-3, Ohio Reports
cited by Col. Colyar, and concur in the cor
rectuess of that decision upon the point
there raised. That case was where bill
was amended on its third reading in the
House, passed, and then passed three read
iDgs in the Senate. The court held that
the constitution did not require the amend
ment to be read on three different days.
We do not deny the power of the House
to amend bill upon any reading. What
we insist is, that Senate bill No. 240
was never read as such in
the House, and that House bill No. S04 was
never read as such in the Senate. If this
tipping law so called is really the law, was
it Senate bill No. 240 or House bill No.
304. If the former, it was only read once
in the House. If the latter, it was never
read in the Senate. In either event it was
not read on three different days in each
house. VIII any insist that if two bills
identically the same be introduced, one in
the Senate and The other in the House, each
bearing the same number, aud each pass on
three different days in its house, that such
a bill thereby becomes the law? If not,
Why moi? There the bill bas been read
and passed on three different days in each
81 use, but Senate bill No. has not pass
ed the House on three different days, nor
has House bill No. 1 passed the Senate on
three different days; therefore neither is the
law.
Commenting upon the provision of our
Constitution which we have quoted above,
the Supreme Court in the case of Ferguson
VS.. The Miners and Manufacturers Bank,
3 Sneed, 626, say:
'Tbe intention of this requirement is to
ensure full consideration and mature refec
ton upon every measure before them, and |
that no bill shall be hastily aud inconsider- |
ately passed"
Cooley, on Constitutional Limitations,
says in relation to the enactment OF laws:
'Not only is it essential that the will of |
the law makers be expressed, but it is also |
essential that it be expressed in due form |
Of law, since nothing is law simply and |
solely because the Legislature will that it |
shall be, unless they have expressed their |
to that effect in the mode |
pointed out by the instrument which iD- |
vests them with power, and under |
all the forms which that inst ument |
has rendered essential" Up. 1907 |
"All those rules which are ofthe essentials |
flaw making must be observed aud follow
ed; and il is only the customary rules of or
der and routine such as in every delibera-
tive body are always understood to be IN
der its control, and subject TO constant
change at its will, that the constitution can
be understood TO have left as matters Of dis
cretioD, to be established, modified or abol-
ished by the bodies for whose government
in non-essential matters they exist" p Isl.
"Thc rule respecting three several read
ings on different days is specific and capa-
BILE of being precisely complied with, and
we do not see how even under the
rules applied to statutes it
can be regarded as directory
merely, provided 1t has purpose beyond
The mere regular and orderly transaction of
business. That it has such purpose, that
it is designed to prevent hasty and improv-
dent legislation, and is therefore not mere
rule of order, but one of protection to the
public interests and to the citizens at large,
IS very clear, and independent of the ques
ion whether definite constitutional princi-
Pies can be dispensed with in any case on
he ground of their being merely directory,
we cannot see how this can be treated as
anything but mandatory" P. 40, note,
citing Gilman, 466; II Indiana, 424.
We do not admit that it is usual to pass
bills on any reading in the Tennessee Leg
stature by the simple reading Of the title.
If it is ever done, it is unconstitutional
Nor do we admit that it is usual to pass
bills in The manner in which the tippling
Dill under discussion was passed. We are
that the point we now make
against the constitutionality of the passage
If this bill was made by Senator Tillman
ew days since on the passage of some IN
important bill. He insisted that the Legisla-
ure ought to conform strictly to the Consti-
ution. If other bills have passed in this
node and the mode is unconstitutional,
t is all the more important that this practice
hould be checked. If allowed in a tippling
bill it may be allowed in any other, and
Don the Constitution FILTERED away be-
.suse the Legislature may consider its pro-
-isions technical. Let us stand by the Con-
.;