The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1886-04-14

ne Dill originated III Tue HOUSE;
and as it passed that body contained
the paragraph imposing the tax on
drummers. When it was consid-
cred in the Senate, it was amended III |
many particulars, and the amendments
were reported by the Senate to the
House. Among them was one
which deprived cities or towns Of
the power to tax drummers in any
sum. These amendments, with the
bill, were sent to the House, where
some of them were concurred in and
some were not The amendment in re-
lation to drummers was in fact con-
Cured in. So that the bill, if properly
enrolled, would contain the paragraph
imposing the State tax on drummers
and would also contain the Senate
amendment denying to cities or towns
the right to collect any additional tax.
1t is claimed, because of the omission
from theenrolled bill of the limitation on
cities and towns, that the bill signed by
the presiding officers of the two Houses
and the Governor is not the bill which
the Legislature passed, and that 1t is
therefore, void, and Of no effect.
1t is admitted that the bill, on its face,
conforms to all the requirements Of the
Constitution, and that but for the
Journals of the two Houses it could not
now be legally known that it is possessed
of any intirmity Is it competent to
look behind the enrolled bill to deter
mine whether the Senate amendment
referred to was concurred in by the
House?
In the interesting case of Green q. Wei
Ter, decided by the High Court of Errors
and Appeals in 1856, there was involved
the validity of the amendment to the
Constitution of 1882, abolishing the
Superior Court Of Chancery and estab-
fishing "Chancery courts, with full
Jurisdiction in matters of equity" etc,
etc. Two questions. were raised and de-
cided
/. Whether the Constitution required
that a bill proposing an alteration or
amendment thereto should be passed by
a majority of two thirds of all the MEM
bers constituting each House, or a
majority of two-thirds of quorum of
each House.
2 Whether after bill has been
signed by the Speaker and President of
the respective Houses, as having regular
ly passed, and been approved by
the Governor, and filed in the office
of Secretary of State, 1t was competent
for the court, er offcio, to take notice
of the journals of the proceedings
of the two Houses, and thereby to
| inquire and determine whether the bill
passed the two Houses by the majority
| required by the Constitution.
The specific objection to the validity
of the amendment was that on one Of
its readings in the Senate, then com
posed of thirty-two members, it only
received twenty one votes, though only
one vote was cast against it.
The decree of the lower court was in
favor of the amendment, and that decree
was affirmed by the High Court of Errors
and Appeals.
Opinions were delivered by Chief
Justice Smith and Judge Handy, that
of Judge Handy being reported as "the
opinion of the Court" and that of the
Chief Justice as dissenting opinion. :
In note found at the end of the case as
reported, Judge George, then the Re.
porter, says that the opinion of Judge
Fisher will be in the next succeeding
| volume of reports.
Judge Handy's opinion does not,
on its face, appear to be the opin-
ion of the court any more than does
thai of Judge Smith, except for the
words, added by the reporter, Handy,
j., delivered the opinion of the court, =
and except that it supports the decree
of the court. On the contrary it, like
the opinion of Judge Smith, is an ex-
pression of the individual views of The
writer on the subjects discussed, and
does not conclude with the usual direc-
ton concerning the decree to be entered.
Judge Handy was Of the opinion that
majority of two-thirds meant major
| ity of two-thirds Of the quorum, and not
a majority of two thirds of all the mem
bers constituting each House, and fur
ther, that the enrolled bill constituted a
record which impaired absolute verify
and was the best evidence of its authen.
ITCHY and true character, and could not
be contradicted by the journals Judge
Smith differed with him on both points.
In an appendix to the 43d volume of
Mississippi Reports, Judge George states
that he learned from Judge Fisher that
he concurred in the afiirmance of the
decree in Green d. Weller, because the
amendment having been submitted to
the people, voted upon and accepted by
them, and, by the succeeding Legisla-
ture, inserted in the Constitution as
part Of that instrument, there was no
tribunal in the Government which could
revise the action Of the respective Leg
islatures and the people. Judge George
L frs~ Ia 81