The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1893-07-01

power involved In the case between the
legislative department and our own"
sv-fhe political act which Is beyond the
limits or power defined in the court, may
be judicially pronounced a nullity. This
Is not n personal punishment. It is not
directed against the official. but at.
taches to the act which he has done and
deprives it of any validity. II this acs
Is Ia the form of an administrative meas
ure, its political character Is gone, and
1t becomes mere private trespass."
Begging the Question.
It has been urged on two grounds that
the court should decline to answer the
questions--first, b cause the house OF
representatives has been adjourned
by the governor, and second, that
whether it has been or not, the cour5
should so consider II, because the execu-
tive depart has issued proclama-
tion to that eff .ct.
Each of these grounds begs the very
questions which have been presented by
the house. Whether or not tn. house
was adjourned by the governor is depsn-
dent entirely upon the question of the
power OF the governor e. adj IT..
Aud whether or not the proclamation is
the proclamation of the executive Of the
state OF Rhode Island, Is dependent upon
whether the executive of the sJate OF
Rhode Island has power TO issue such u
proclamation.
refusal to answer these questions
mus It necessarily involve their decision.
Ii the governors proclamation was in
valid; AS an attempt to adjourn the Leg
islature when the constitution com.
manded it to sit; as an attempG TO term
mate session as distinguished from ap-
pointing time and place for the meet
ing of an adjourned session; as founded
upon q certificate which upon its face
showed that there had been no disagree
ment, then it was a nuliity and can nave
no effect whatever, either upon the court
or upon the house OF representatives.
III this act was a nullity, then the
resolution was duly passed by the house
and the questions are duly before the
court, and the proper officers OF the
house are In readiness TO receive the
courts opinion.
Adjournment Forbidden.
VIII atever may have occurred since the
passage of the resolution by q lawfully
constituted house is entirely i'm material.
IL the senate has dispersed. that cannot
affect the right of the mouse TO an answer.
Even had the house adjourned after COM
municating these questions, IL would
have been proper for the court to answer
them and to communicate the answer to
the officers of the house.
fDut buo CoDlillduu VI but
that there shall be session, at a
given place aud at given time
time, forbids an adjournment. Neither
by resolution. by acquiescencs I'm an un-
law, vi proclamation, nor by dispersal of
the senator's. can the command Of the
constitution be repealed.
Had the two houses right to pass re-
solutions OF adjournment at this time, 1t
might be that by acquiescence In an un-
lawful proclamation they cJuld have ex-
pressed their will to adjourn This though
a doubtful proposition Of law WAS held
ia People vs. Hatcl, 80 Ill. 10, where
there wus no constitution provision ior-
bidding an adjournment or requiring the
performance or an imperative dut, as In
this case.
But IL is most certain that the hous,s
canuot do by acquiescence, what they
,nnot do by resolution, aud the houses
having no power 10 adj Durn wItlouS per
formauce OF the duty 10 70 intc urat d
commit 90 his ministerial duty, dirsctly