Dakota farmers' advocate. (Canton, S.D.) 18??-1890, 1890-07-18
CANTON, SOUTH DAKOTA, FRlDAy JULY .le, 1890.

ulSGlHCI lHcdHHlS, HO rcSOFC 10 any CeSCl-
mony to set aStde that meaning is admis.
sible, and thai the law as found on such
records must stand until repealed. /
take this prorpsition in the presence of a
large numberDf lawyers who are MEM
bers of this bdly, and ask them to show
if they can thht this is not the rule Sir,
erroneous pnk klication of the law does not
make it q laWg even though it is publish
ed and signed by the presiding officers of
each House nd approved by the presi-
dent. "A similar question has been raised
in England BIN Mays Treatise on pro-
ceedings in Eerliament it is said, page
554, that
Since thaassent of Queen, Lords and
Parliament essential to the validity Of
an act
II. Will Ne royal assent cure all prior
irregularitie4Gn the same way that the
passing OF aAill in the Lords would pre-
clude inquikas to the informalities in
any previou9 stage?
=. Is th@endorsement on the bill re-
cOrding the assent of the Queen, Lords
and Commd conclusive evidence of the
fact, or \
%. May e journals of either house
be permitte Ito contradict it?
The frsl lcase in which difficulty
arose was ilgthe 33d of Henry VI,
! .
In that Csc the Lords, in order to
avoid certaA construction as to the date
on which gertain bill was to take effect,
altered the 4Ate, but did not return the
bill to the Commons. A motion was
made to impeach the validity of the act
on the ground that the Commons ought
to have had the bill back On the hear
ing. Chief Baron Illingworth and Mr..
Justice Nlkrkman We're of the opinion
that if gtheAmendment made the bill vary
in effect from that which was sent up
from the Commons the act would be in
valid. Chief Justice Fortescue conclud-
ed the CASSIDY saying:
This I'm act of Parliament, and we
will be WI advised before we annul any
act of Paiam and peradventure the
matter, ouSht to wait until the next Par
liameIt, Ien we can be certified by them
Of theSceri ehty Of the matter; but, not
withstand Zig, We will be advised what
III 1920 abilf tf'ss Is samend TIE law IN re-
lation to- the employment Of children in
factories passed the Commons and was
agreed toin the Lords with an amends
ment, and through mistake received the
royal assent, after which the amendment
was agreed to by the Commons; but in
order to remove ali doubts an act was pass
ed to declare tllat the act shall be valid
and effectual to all ntents and purposes
us if the amendment made by the Lords
had been agreed to by the Commons be-
fore said act received the royal assent"
In 1913 the schoolmasters' widows fund
bill was returned to the Commons with
amendments, and by mistake the bill re-
ceived the royal assent. After IN cxami-
nation of precedents the act was made
valid by Il new enactment In this coun-
try, as in England. the assent Of the
president, the Senate and House of Rep.e.
sentatives is essential to the validity of an
act, and the courts OF the United States
have with great unanimity held, as has
been done in England, that the records
made by the law-making branch of the
state must be resorted to in all cases in
dispute in order to ascertain what the
law is. The first to which | shall refer
is entitled Town of South Ottawa rs.
Perkins (page 2G1 etsupra, "a S. G. Reps.
Otto lV.) The facts OF. this case occurred
in my congressional. district, and briefly
stated are these; Certain towns along
the line of the Ottawa Oswego and Fox
River Valley railroad voted bonds to the
amount of nearly half a million dollars to
aid in the construction of said road. The
town OF South Ottawa. acting under a
published act of the legislature. which
was signed by the speaker of the house,
the president of the senate, and approved
by the governor, voted to issue, and did
issue. its bonds to a large amount for the
purpose indicated. These bonds were de
livered to the railroad company, and by it
to the contractors, who sold them to in
vestors and used the proceeds in con-
structing the road Every transaction in
relation to the issuance and sale of these
bonds was made in the utmost good faith.
After interest had been paid on the bonds
for year or more it was discovered that
the record made by the secretary of the
senate of Illinois did not show atlirma-
lively that the bill granting to these
towns the authority to vote the issue of
bonds as indicated above was read third
time and the yeas and nays called there
CT, as the constitution Of the State re-
Q.tires.
''When the case came on for trial in an
Illinois court the town Of South Ottawa
offered to prove, by the journals of each
house of the legislature that there was no
entry in the same of a final vote by the
senate on the act of February 1857 {giv-
ing the town authority to VCte.)