The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-11-26
THE SUPREME COURT AND TIE APPRo
PRTATION BILL


Speaker of the House of Representatives are
charged with the duty of attesting all bills
which have been enacted by the General AS
sembly in accordance with the provisions of
the constitution. Everybody knows that
these officers take an oath to support the con-
stitution of the State, and to faithfully dis
charge their duties, and they are, therefore,
sworn to do no official act which violates the
organic law. 1t is their duty, as decided in
the case of the Board of Commissioners VS..
Burford, about which so much has been
written in ignorance, to attest such bills as
have been passed according to the provisions
of the constitution and not to attest any
others, This is plainly the effect of the de-
cision, because it holds that the
courts must act upon the authenti-
cation of the President of the Sem
ate and the Speaker of the House.
The duty of these officers is to create evil
dence, and they violate their sworn duty if
they give evidence, by their official sigma
lures, of anything else than the truth. The
truth requires that no other bills shall be
authenticated by them than such as have
been enacted in conformity to the provisions
of the constitution. The Legislature has no
right to violate the paramount law of the
land; every legislator is, by that law, re-
quired to take an oath to support it, No
other bills are adopted, nor can any others
be adopted, except such as have been enacted
in conformity to constitutional require
ments. If, then, Leutenant-governor Han
ma had signed the appropriation bill he
would have been guilty of making false evil
dence, because he knew the bill was not
legally passed 1t is as plain as nything can
possibly be, that the decision in the Board of
Commissioners against Burford is full and
complete vindication of Mr.. Hanna's course.
If be had done otherwise than he did he
would have been foresworn in that he would
have borne false witness.
1t is not decided in the case referred to that
the Legislature may, at its pleasure, disre-
gard the provision of the constitution that
mo bill shall be presented to the Governor
within two days next previous to the final
adjournment of the General Assembly" No
such question was presented, nor could there
be, for the manifest reason that the law re-
quires that the courts shall accept as conclu-
sive the Authorization by the President of
the Senate and the Speaker of the House.
What is decided is, that as the law now
stands, courts cannot sit in judy
ment on the Legislature, a coordinate
branch of the government, and frame
issues and call juries to try the question
whether the legislators have regarded their
oaths and obeyed the constitution they
were sworn to support. The theory of the
decision is, that legislators will not do what
the constitution forbids; that the Speaker of
the House and the President of the Senate
will sign no bills which have not been legally
enacted, and that courts or juries are not
appointed to set in judgment over them. 1t
is readily seen, therefore, how important it
is that the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House should sacredly regard
passed within such time as renders it i'm
possible to present the bills to the Governor
within the period prescribed by the consti-
tuition. The warrant for declaring it to be the
duty of the presiding officers of the two
branches of the General Assembly to sign all
bills is found in the provision of the constitu
ton which reads "All bills shall be signed by
the presiding officers of the respective houses"
This can only mean-and we suppose there
is no sane man who doubts this-that these
officers shall sign only such bills as were
legally passed. A bill voted upon at a time
prohibited by the constitution cannot be
said to have been legally enacted, and to sign
such bill would be to bear false testimony.
The question in the Burford case has no ref
erence to the powers duties or rights of the
executive 1t relates solely to the proceed
ings OF the Legislature The question was as
to the power of the court to look beyond the
authenticated bill; and it was held that il
act upon the evidence which it was the
sworn duty Of the presiding officers of the two
houses of the General Assembly to furnish
When these officers gave evidence by their
signatures that the bill was passed it became
the duty of the court to accept as true this
sworn evidence, and treat the bill as having
been enacted within the time and in the
manner required by the constitution. There
is nothing in the decision that directly or
indirectly intimates that the legislators may
disregard any constitutional provision. On
the contrary, the court acts upon the pre-
sumption that there was no disregard of duty