Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1886-05-27
VOID STATUTES.

Ex,Judge j. r. Lewis contributes
communication to the Seattle Post, in
which he holds that the recent decision
Of Judge Lanefor1, declaring void i'm
properly entitled statutes, is incorrect
Judge Lewis, Whose opinion az lawyer
is entitled TO the sraycst eonsid, ration in
this territory, does not give any reason
why such statutes ere valid, further than
the following from the eminent Judge
Cooley: "WLen courts are called upon
to pronounce the invalidity of an act of
legislation passed with all the forms and
ceremonies requisite to give it the force
Of law, they viii apr, ach the question
with graf caution, examine it in every
possible aspect, end ponder upon it as
long as elaboration and patient attention
can throw any new light upon the sub.
ject, and never declare statute void un-
less the nullity and invalidity of the act
are placed in their judgment beyond rca'
sonable doubt"
There cannot be any doubt in any
legal mind that narrow and technical
constructions Of law are not wholesome
but the reason Of the requirement that
the title Of all bills should express their
objects was to prevent unwholcsome leg
lslation. 1t was very common practice,
before the creation Of this constitutional
bulwark, to smuggle into otherwise pro-
per bills legislation that was vicious.
Another constitutional provision set up
for the government of the law making
power in some of the states, that every
enactment shall be read twice ut length,
and not more than once by title. Clear
ly, If a law, no matter how proper it may
be in itself, should be passed in violation
Of this recruitment in states where it
exists, the court would have no alter
native but to declare its invalidity.
In this territory there are no such con-
stitutional mandate as the one above refer.
red to, but as matter of fact, some of
our legislative enactments are not read at
length in either branch of the legislature.
II it should transpire that an enactment,
whose title merely amended a section.of
the code but contained matter entirely
foreign to the section referred to, should
come before the courts for Indication as
to its validity, they would have no legal
right to consider the question whether
the matter in the act under consideration
is gcrmane to the section attempted to be
amended or otherwise. The only ques-
ton they can lawfully consider is, whether
the object Of the act Is stated in its title.
IF it should be held that reference to
number in the title to an amendatory act
is adequate, then the question is con-
clusively settled against any consideration
Of the matter of such amendatory act.
As Judge Langford correctly stated,
the numbers to an enactment, under the
rule Of parliamentary law, are no part Of
the enactment. They are merely attach.
ed TO enactments often after their passage
for convenience for reference, by clerks
having no legislative power. They are
no more a part Of law than The index
1t would be fully as competent to amend
somo book in tho territorial library by
reference to its proximity with some
other book. The legal positions in Ju 'ge
Langfora's decision are imper. nable. 1t
is salutary for the whole people of Wash
, ington Territory that every safeguard
thrown about the forms Of legislation
should be respected. Constructive or i'm
piled power caunot be conceded by any
body Of lawmakers in free country.
The question is not whether the lcgisla-
: ton invalidatcd is vicious or otherwise.
II it should be now held that amendatory
legislation by mere reference to number
is competent, the gates would be thrown
open to subsequent legislatures to entire
" disregard the wholesome barrier in the
organic act against improper legislation.
Let US make haste slowly 10 this matter
let US preserve tho forms set up for the
protection Of the people; and let us rather
get validating act by congress for these
improperly entitled acts than violate q
sacred priuciple.-IV. W. Journal.