The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1889-05-30

clared by the court from its judicial knowl-
euge as an existing law under the doctrine
OF the case of The Prince, Coke, %, There
1t Is said
!, Eor Coo Defend if the record of such acts
s sha De lost, or burnt by fire or other means that
1ne same snail be 10 the general prejudice OF the
the judges, by printing or by the record in which
II, Is pleaded, or by other means, may inform
themselves Of it,"
The act in question has been neither lost
nor destroyed, but is now solemn record in
the secretary's office showing that it never
became statute; and the parol testimony re
lieu upon to establish a lost or destroyed re-
cora Is incompetent inasmuch as n seeking
10 set up lost record 1t fatty cOntradiets an
existing one
The cases relied upon by the relator do not
controvert our view Of the law, but rather
confirm ii.
mThe first case cited upon this point shows
tnat the governor had signed an act of the
legislature and deliberately deposited it in
the state archives an an approved act, and
thereafterwards, without withdrawing the
act from the custody OF the Secretary of
state, sent a veto message to the legislature
stating that he had approved the act, but
oDlecting to some of its provisions. OF
course, the veto came too late The record
was conclusive. State VS.. Whisner, 80 Kan.
271.
The second case cited shows that the leg
islature had passed an act and sent 1t to the
governor for his approval, but, before he
acted, recalled it by a. Joint resolution, and
ne thereupon returned IL without approval
or disapproval; and the court held that it
became law without executive approval
All these facts appeared by the records of
the legislature. Walfe vs.. McCaull, rs Va.
876.
The third case cited shows that the presi-
dent had approved an act Of Congress, that
took effect upon its passage, without affixing
the year; and the supreme court declared
the date of its passage. The original record
was imperfect, and the judges sought in
formation from the journals of Congress, the
records of the department of state, and the
message of the President to Congress stating
the date of his approval of the act. All the
best evidence in existence, used to supple
ment an imperfect record, not to contradict
and destroy one. Gardiner " The Collector,
Wall, 499.
And so it is with all the other cases cited
by the relator, except the Illinois bond cases
DeIore referred to, and series of decisions
IN n New York 81 relating to what Is known as
the journals of the legislature to overcome
the certificates Of the presiding officers of
the TWO houses as showing that these bills
appropriating money for local or private
purposes did not pass each house
oy two-thirds vote as required
far as the reports Of them show, the certif-
Gates did not state the passage Of the bills
by two.thirds l-te, but only that they
passed, &C., so that these cases may not be
regarded as authorities against the doctrine
mere lad Down. People v. Allen, AZ n. Y.
37S. People v. The Commissioners, 54N.Y.
276; People V. Petrea. 90 N. Y. 1928.
The opinion Of the justices in New Hamp-
shire touching the bank cashiers act seems
to hold to the same doctrine of the Illinois
t pond cases; but 1t is to be remembered that
the opinion was given without the aid of ar
suments at the bar, and, therefore, is of less
weight than decision considered in the
ilght OF solemn argument. IS N. III. $40.
Writ denied.
PETERS, 9. j., WALTON, DANFoRTH, VIR.
GIN aud EMERY, ~. concurred.