The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-06-06
THE Law SUSTAINED.
Supreme Court Decision In the
Land Commission Case.
APPOINTMENTS ARE LEGAL,
The Court Refuses to Go Rack of the
Enrolled Legislative Acts
Attorney Ceaeral Joness Fosttion Tn
eesahle. and . Writ Of Maadamus 10
Ordered Issued Requiring Him to
Approve Roads Of Comuaissiouera

approve noAde Of COmmissiouera.
OLYMPIA, June s. Special. Following
Is statement in brief OF the decision hy
the supreme court fled today in the case
OF I. NJ. Reed. jr.. vs.. Attorney-Geners
Jones. The opinion is signed by all the
Justices and covers t~enty-nine typc-wri,.
ten pages:
Respondent. - attorney general. was charged
oy al acs OF the legislature. or what rar.orts 10
Be such, wita the duty Of approving thc bond Of
felasof - oae OF tha board OF state lxnd corr
missioner, provided for by said act Tnts dusy
hs refused to perform on the gsonnd that what
purposted 70 be an act Of the legislature wss not
In fact such. 70. the rsason that constitutional
requirements had not bean observed by the
ieEisistufs in IL passage Tho proceedings
were brought 70 compel such action by the re-
spondcnt. II 10 not claimed by tho rsspQudcns
but that the enrolled bill on fiie In the once Of
the secretary OF stato 10 in al respects regular
upon ito face, but IL il claimed that an examinx-
tsoa OF the journals OF the respective houses
viii show that the leeisiature dssfexarded scv.
erai mandatory provisions OF the constitution
which ts Nas incumbent on them TO observe De-
fore any bill can become law Preliminary To
entering upon tho question thus argued We
must decide ~ TO the effect to be given to the
enrolled bills on nle In tho ofice Of the secre-
tary OF state.
AZ to Just " hat force respondent 10 willing to
conecde to such enrolled bills 10 not clear from
his argument. though II may probably Be fairly
deduced thcrcfrom that he II willing TO cVnceie
that Il prtma tacie ss:ahlishea the fact Of the
regularity Of its passage through the lesiaature.
but that auch prime facte proof r. overcome
whenever there 10 . suggestion 20 tho court that
the journal or other competent proofs shows
that some constitutional requirement had not
been complied with: that upon such suxges-
tion the courts must take judicial notice OF
what the journals show in that respect. and II it
appears to the court thercfrom that there has
been such violation OF the constitutional
requirement it must b held that the
enrolled bill IL not Ia force - Q law. That this
To the position Of respondent seems certain from
the lire OF authorites which he has cited to sus-
tain II, - nearly all OF them hold that such
primo facie presumption attaches to enrolled
billA II this 10 not his position then IL must b
that the enrolled bill 10 proof Of nothing and
that In every case the courts and all the inhabi-
tanto OF the state must take notice OF ths course
of the Legislature - to every step relating to
the passage d . bill. % far - such steps arc
made obligatory upon the Legislature by the
constitution. II the cous.s were to hold with this
latter contention It would lead 70 such sosults
- 70 almost justify revolution on the part
OF the people. A pssson might, while suppos-
ing that he was acting In accordance with the
laws OF the state, Be, In fact. committing .
crime. aud an oiIicse who ahould venture to pay
out money In punuancs OF what seemed to b
law could b called % account fue the same -
having bcen paid out In notation OF oil Law. II,
IN fact, such seeming Law had not bsen consti.
tutionally passed - shown BY the legislasivs
journals. That such must b tho result. II the
signing by the presiding oficee and the aprro-
val BY the governor are 70 b considered only -
steps In the sct Of making q bill Q law and
not In themselves proof Of such fact
seems clear under the weIl-settIed rules
relating to the construction. II such sigping
and approval are oaly steps In construction,
then the fact that they have bsen taken In no
manner proves that any oshcr required step has
been taken. and II must follow that before the
courts can dnd that bill has become . Law
they must look and zee that all the steps se-
Quired by the constitution TO constitute IL -
such have been observed BY the iesIUAturc.
Such . construction given 70 an enrolled act
would render II practically impossible for the
courts even TO dsssfmine what WAS Law. The
absolutely disastrous result Of this construc-
tion has led the courts which have held they
could 60 behind au enrolled act 70 adopt
the thsory which seems 70 ~ illogical
that enrolled acts prima iacis but not con-
clustvciy establish the fact OF regular enact
ment II. from the enrolled bills on nle. II can
be conciusively presumed tha. IL has been
regularly enacted by the Legislature, ana no evil
consequence Will follow. the duty OF the courts
will bo confined exciusively TO asc<ssaining
the effect OF such. IL follows a. . matter OF
public policy. - we'll - convenience, and Ger
,sinly the court should adopt . rule which
makes IL such. that enrolled bills are conclusive
evidence OF regular enactment. II IL eau do 90
without notating some OF the constitutional
proviAions or well settled rules OF construction.
As already stated. none OF the cases cited BY
respondent 60 to the extent OF holding that the
enrolled act on hle 10 proof OF nothirg at all.
aud that the fact OF its being thus found on fe
must be supplemented by further Affirmative
finding from the journals that it has been eexu-
larry enacted before it can b given any forcs
whatever An enrolled btli on nle II either
what 10 puspsrts TO Be. . Law regularly passed
through the legislature. or II 10 nothing. II. in
FACT regularly passed., 10 10 . law, not simply
prifna facia, but conciusivey 80. IL seems,
therefore. TO follow - . necessary conclusion
that ali OF the courts have looked upon
these enrolled bills ~ nnai rec
osds OF tho legislative department. In
the enactment Of laws, aud IL 80
Why should they not b given the sanction and
force incident TO anal records. Tho icg.sia;nre
10 9 coordinate branch Of the government ana
cannot in any sense bs said 10 be an inferior
body: consequently its anai record. when ce'
tilted and recorded ey the constitution. inyarss
absolute verify.
Hut il IL argued on the part o. respondent tha;
II the courts do not look into tho proceedings Of
the legislature and sst aside the laws not sn-
acted with the iormaiities required by the con-
st!tg.!cn the legislature can at pleasure nuilify
such proceedsugA This 10 no doubt trus ana Il;
10 upoa this line OF reasoning ths, those
couets which have gone behind enrolled
bills have justified themselves In 30
doing But 10 this . reasonable construction in
view Of the theory OF our government ard the
principles enuncisted in the constitution :
Each o. the three Departments iato which the
government 10 divided are equal, and each de-
ra-snent should b held responsible TO the peo-
pie IL representa- and nos 70 other departments
OF the government IL seems 20 us that the acts
of each o.. them. when certified ~ required BY
ihe constitution, OF such = universal course o.
prac.scs - 20 aavs the force OF constitutional
rsovlsion, shousd b conclusive upoa each of
the other depastmenss. and there would seem 10
- 10 more impsopsicsy ia . legislature
seeking 20 90 behind ths naai record o!
. court for the purpose Of Determining
whether OF no: IL hss oteyed the cous;it1tionai
directions in making such = record than tners
would be 10 the courts seextng 70 60 bshind the
aasi record mass by the legislative department,
To preserve fns harmony OF oar form os govern
meat IL mnss 10 hsid that these seysral man
datoYy provisions OF the Constitution Cd
dressed % tire department which 10 called upon
TO perform them an4 that nsithe. OF t5e oshes
dspayxments can. Ia any manner. eoerca that de
parsueat into obedience shesssa Courts hsss
xous hehisd the Anal records OF tie Legislative
depsrsrneut upon what seesss false fhcCfy-
Upcn ID principle, thea. In vtsw o. disistou
/ into cepagtnscts. sader cur form os govern