Telegram-herald., 1891-01-24
THE ACT IS VALID
the Supreme Court Holds the
Statute Constitutional And
JUDGE BuRcH LEGALLY QUALIFIED
rs sitas Cisesit Jadgs ksr fhis cesssy--
Ali nis Jadgsnesss asd Dsesees HAD
ius-ns ~ ash. neusser, Give Way
ss Saeesssss Whsa kAeessA-

preme Court today handed doNn
decislon in the quo xarranto proceed
ings against Judge Bufeh, Instituted by
Nosrs 4 Norris. of Grand Rapids
Thin il the full text of the decision:
Supreme Court OF the State OF Miehisan--The
People. en- rel. the Attorney General vs.
Asrsden C. Bureh nied January 3. lssi;
Morse, This Is proceeding IN the
nature of . quo warfanto to test the
right of the respondent 10 hold the
Office of Judge of the circuit court for
the county OF Kent
At the general election in the spring
of 1889. an amendment TO Art. 8, q OF
the Constitution, was adopted proyld-
ing that the Legislature might provide
for the election Of more than one cir
cult Judge IN the county OF Kent The
amendment also provided that II
should take effect from the time Of its
adoption.
The Legislature, then being in session,
thereupon passed an act creating the
office OF an additional circuit judge for
Kent county, and declared such office
vacant from the time the act took ef
feet. and provided that the vacancy
thus declared should be filled by ap-
polntment by the Governor, ''the per-
son SO appointed 10 hold his Office pro-
visionally from the time of hls appoint
nient until the general election for
township officers, III the spring of 1898;
or until his successor shall be elected;
and the term for which the Judge shall
be appointed shall expire December 81,
1898" Act No. 81, p. A., 1889, pages
l02, l03.
This act was gwen immediate effect
and approved by the Governor May IL,
1889. The Governor appointed the re-
spondent as such Circuit Judge, June
/, 1889, and he has since exercised the
duties of such Office. The first conten-
ton of the relator is that tie act WAS
never properly and constitutionally
passed bv the legislature. The history
Of the bill as far as this question is con-
cerned and necessary to be shown IN
its consideration is as follows:
The bill was introduced in the Senate
Feb. 16, 1889, and referred to the CON-
mittee on Judiciary. May 2, 1889, the
said Committee reported the bill with
amendments and recommended It's PATS
age. The rules were suspended and the
bill passed and ordered to take lmmedi-
ate effect. 1t then went to the House
and was there amended, passed and
given immediate effect.
May 3, 1889, the Senate on its return
from the House, concurred in the
House amendments and referred the
bill to the Committee on engrossment
and enrolment. S, j. p. 797. May
9, 1889, the House requested the Senate
to return the bill. The Senate there
upon ordered the committee to return
it to the Senate. which having been
done, the face of the Journal as then
made up shows the following proceed
ings:
"Mr. Wesselius moved to reconsider
the vote by which the Senate passed the
bill, which motion prevailed. The ques-
ton being On the passage of the bill,
on lotion of Mr.. Wessoiius, the
bll! Is ordered to be returned TO the
House." 5. J. page Sl1.
At the close of the Senate journals
on the page before the certificate of
the Secretary, which bears date July 3,
1889, is page headed: '.Errata In the
record OF bills. Minor errors not
noted; only such as affect the record or
bills in the consideration 10y the Senate.
The corrections are all made upon the
authority of the records kept by the
bill clerk under the supervision OF the
Secretary.l
On page Sll, lines ten and eleven, the
vote reconsldered was not the passage
of the bill, but the vote by which the
Senate concurred III the House amend
mcnts to the bill, on page 1917"
After the proceedings taken, as shown
on page sIl, of the Senate journal. the
bill was returned To the House, and
there further amended, returned again
to the Senate, the House amendments
there concurred in, the bill engrossed
and enrolled. signed by the proper Off
GERS OF both Houses, and approved by
the Governor.
The defect claimed in the passage or
| the bill. is that the face oil the senate
| journal shows on page Sll thatthe vote
| by which the Senate passed the bill was
reconsidcrcd, leaving II standing before
that body as If IL had never been passed
/ That in that shape it was returned 10
the House, and when it came back 10
| the Senate the House amendments were
| eoncurrcd in. bu. the bill itself was not
! passed by the Senate, and therefore
failed to become law. That the Sec
rotary had no authority to make the
1 correction found IN the "Efrata." 1t
| docs not affirmstIveiy appear that at
what time the Secretary made this cor
| rcctlon of the record, but II 10 10 he pre-
/ sumed from the place where the
"errats" is found that he made IL on OF
before the date of his certificate, July
| 3, 1889, as the certificate follows the
correcucn. The Legislature adjourned
SINE die upon that date and, a every
| intendmcnt Is to he taken IN favor OF
the correctness of legislative action, II
must also be presumed that the correc-
| ton was made before the adjournment
! of the senate. II it was done. as We
! must presume that 4 Was, before the
! final adjournment of the Legislature.
we must also presume that II was au-
thofized by the senate, and that the
/ true journal entry OF the proceedings 8:
as corrected by the "Errafz"
IL also appears from the journals OF
| ths senate that On tee first dsy Of the
session OF the Leg stature the fosI0r ne
resolution was adopted . Resolved
That tae reading OF the daily journal
De dispensed w8fh Tor this se.e0n aud
that the secretary he autaorfzea =
make al necessary correction II the
Journal from day - daS.,
Whsle tais may not have been TIE
best practice IN order 80 secure shsosDts
verify OF toe record ti1ere - 20 pro
blbssson of such yFsoFFoe 10 &c found q
the essnst tatayn, tfse oalg pros ls1ogl
beng ttsst "Eacn Hagse sbasl KEEP 9
journal II - proceedings aaa PSe'lsss
the sane except saea parts ss msy IL
/ aa4re secrecy. 4rt. 8, 70.
/ Under tkfs re<ol15tsers t5s Serfet*rT
~ tkA ~anxte ~z< autnor z4ss - nssxe