The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1886-05-12
SUPREME COURT CASES.
Reported for The Clarion " w n Harper
Therapeutics, Jscksca, MICS
October Term-I8ss-
Elk pARrE. W. v. wRES.
Appeal in ha5eas corpus.

CAMPBELL, j., delivered the opinion OF
the court.
The right OF the sheriff Of Kinds /
county to detain the petitioner depends
ID the validity of "An Act to amend /
'ection 557 aud 585 Code of 1880, so as
% increase the public revenue and pro
vide for the faithful collection of the
'ame;" approved March Is, 1886, and |
published by authority as law It, |
validity as a law is assaiIed on the |
ground that while it was signed by the |
president of the senate and the speaker !
IF the house of representatives, and by |
the governor, it is not to be accepted a.
law because by reference to the journals |
Of the senate and house IL appears that
a bill, with the title of the foregoing act
was introduced in the house and passed,
and sent to the senate, which passed
it with thirty seven amendments, of
which that numbered thirty-fou re-
lated to that part of the bill which i'm
posed the tax, for the non payment of
which petitioner was arrested, and ma
terially altered ii, and that the bill was
IN other particulars by the
senate, and returned to the house, which
concurred in these amendments, but the
act as approved by the governor does
not contain said amendment thirty-four
aud Faid other amendment particularly
mentioned, but wholly omits both,
wherefore it is alleged that the bill
signed by the governor was not passed
by both houses, and therefore is not
law, or If law in part, is not as to the
part under which the petitioner is de-
tanned.
The question thus presented Is not
whether the journals of the senate and
house of representatives are evidence,
and may be reserted to a. such in some
cases, and tor some purposes, or whether
the approval and signing by the gov
ernor Of an act which vas not passed
by both houses would give it the force
of law, or whether an alteration of an
act passed by both houses and signed
by the governor, after such signing
would affect it.
The precise question for decision is
this: Is an act signed by the Governor,
after having been signed by the Presi-
dent of the Senate and the Speaker OF
the House of Representatives in attesta
ton Of the fac. that it had passed both
Houses, the sole evidence of its contents,
as passed by both Houses, or may reEort
be had to the journals of either to de-
termine whether the bill as signed by the
President of the Senate and Speaker OF
the House contains amendments which
appear TO have been adopted; in other
words, whether the bill as signed by the
presiding officers is that which was pass
ed by both Houses.
1t is not questioned that bill entitled
as above passed both Houses, and the
dispute is whether the two Houses con
scented to precisely the same provisions.
1t is question as TO the contents and
provisions of the bill. There is great
diversity of opinion on the general sub
ject to which this question relates.
One view IL that the Legislature can
act only as authorized by the constitu
ton, and that the journals must show
affirmatively conformity to the require
ments of the constitution in the progress
of bill through its several stages tc
| become law, or else that it is not law
| and is to be so declared and treated by
the courts.
Another is that mere silence OF the
| journals as to those matters not re
quired by the constitution to be entered
on them will not invalidate bill passed
by both Houses, but presumption will
be INDUCED in favor of conformity to
the constitution, and the act will be
upheld on that presumption but, if the
| constitution requires the entry on the
journals of certain things, and they are
not shown by the journals, or, if the
journals affirmatively SHOW failure to
observe those provisions cf the constitu
ton which relate to the passing of bills
out are not required 10 be entered on
the journals, the bill will MT become q
law.
A third view is that the enrolled
act signed by the President of the Sen
ate and the Speaker eff the House OF
Representatives end the Governor is the
sole expositor of its contents, and the
conclusive evidence of its existence &C
| cordiHg to its purport, and that it is no;
| allowable to looI, further to discover tie
history Of the act, or ascertain its pro
visions.
There may be notifications of these
several views, but they embrace sub
| stantially the different rules ANNOUNCED
on this much mooted subject.
The first mentioned has but feeble
support. Its absurdity is so manifest as
to have found few advocates. 1t degrades
| the Legislature below the level OF an
inferior court of special and limited
jurisdiction, and demands that its
daily record of proceedings shall afiirma-
| lively show the existence of all those
facts and conditions on which its power
to act depends, aud INDUCES no pre-
sumption in favor of its proper action,
even as to matters over which its power
to act is undoubted.
This view appears to have obtained a
firm footing in Illinois, founded on a
change in the Constitution which was
held to make that rule proper. As
formulated in Barnes a. .Std1mes, 35 III.
III, the doctrine is that ''when a bill
has become law, there must be record
evidence Of every material requirement
from its introduction until it becomes a
law. And this evidence is found upon
the journals of the two houses Similar
9tterances have been made elsewhere.
1t is evident that able judges in Illinois
have been dissatisfied with the rule in
that State. In the case just mentioned
1t is said, "Were it not for the some
what peculiar provision of our Constitu
ton, which requires that all bills, before
they can become laws, shall be read
there several times in each house, and
shall be passed By a vote of a majority
OF all the members elect, a bill
thus signed and approved would be
conclusive of its validity and binding
force as law 1t was also said. eve
are not, however, prepared to say that
different rule might not have subserved
the public interest equally well, leaving
the Legislature and the Executive 70
guard the public interest in this regard
or to become responsible for its neg
leet."
The second view mentioned has con.
siderable support, There is a quite gen
eral concurrence in the proposition that
| mere silence CT the journals as to those
steps In the progress of bill through
the two houses, not required by the con
stltution to be entered on the journals.
will not invalidate bill, which in such
case will he presumed to have been pass
ell IN conformity to the constitution
but among the courts holding to this
second view there is not complete accord
rs to when the failure of the Journals To
show entries required by the constita-
eiSA W Oc iuduc vi tuSul Will 1lVaIlQdte
an act of the Legislature; nor is there
harmony as to the scope of judicial Wis
ion beyond the enrolled act, in the effort
to ascertain the law.
This view puts the Legislature on the
footing of an inferior tribunal with spe
cial authority to act in a prescribed
state of case and manner, and presumes
in favor of the regularity of its action
in cases in which its action is not re-
CURED to be shown by its record, and
against it as to matters required to be of
record on its journal, and decides
against its action in the absence of such
record evidence, as well as where its
record shows afirmatively non compli-
ance with directions of the constitution
as 10 the mode of exercising Legislative