The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-04-07
LAND Co,GlGIssIoN sxxx.



10 Uneoastitut1onAl.
SPOKANE, April &-fSpeoial. EAttornsy
General Jones has declined 70 approve the
bond OF Thomas Il Reed. r.. for $4,000
as . member Of the state land commission
and has mailed NJ. Reed . letter. Of which
the following u eopys
zAonos Rss4 a.. ssueels WasA-Dsae 81: I
am In receips q youR eomMunicat1oa Of rocent
date enclosing Soe ny approval you4 bend for
the once ef eommissiouee On the board oe pub
lie landA 1Tsgrss my inability 70 80 my way
clear 70 appcevs tAis bond foe shs following
reasons:
An approval sf shis bend necessarily REQUIRES
me 70 consider the question Of the validity OF
the Law under which you Weeo appointed. II
that law Il valid and youy bond In peope1 form,
1t 10 my duty - approvs Il Il the cot u invalid
have no authority whatever % approve II
have given the oct, senate bill No. l6o3f under
which this appointment II made very careful
examination, and after its examination have
such grave doubts about the validity Of this oct
for any purpose Whatsvsrs that, In my judg-
ment, IL would b unWise 70 commence the sd-
ministration Of the important Affairs treated Of
in that sct In advance OF . judicial inquiry
into the constitutionality Of that Law. Ths
conseq quencss Of discovering that this Law was
invalid after the important duties imposed
upon the board OF state land commissioners BY
that oct had been undertaken and prosecuted
for . considerable length Of time would b 30
serious TO the state that common prudence 70.
quires that its validity should b established
before such steps are taken.
In this view Of the matter II h unnecessary
for me to express IN unqualified opinion that
the act 10 void. Tho mere fact that there are
grave doubts Of its validity would bc sufficient
to require this action on my part
l am the more reluctant to take
the responsibility OF setting this law In motion
ip advance of judicial decision on its validity,
for the reason that it has bsen examined By
many eminent lawyers OF this state, each OF
whom 90 far ~ 1t has come to my knowledge,
has reached tho conclusion that the law is void.
For the purpose Of aiding you in determining
what course to pursue In view OF my declining
to approve your bond, will call your attention
to q few points with reference to this bill
that are worthy of careful attention.
The bill was introduced less than ten
days before the close Of the session. II it 10 Q
new bill, IL 10 directly In contravention of Sec
ton &c. article IL. OF the constitution. 1t how
ever, pufports to be . substitute for four senate
bills and one house bill, though 1t does not pur-
port to bs q substitute for any one OF those
bills. Substituting one bill for another has been
recognized by the supreme court Of the state of
Michigan a proper method OF amendment
but il may admit OF serious doubt whether nve
bills may be amended Ia this way By . single
act. particularly In view Of the fact
that the scope and object Of some OF
the amended bills was altogether DIFF
ferent from the other bills 70 attempted
to be amended, 40 well a. from the act Itself.
In this connection would call your attention
to pages 137 to 40. fifth edition OF
Cooleys Constitutional Limitations; and also
to note to that text; also the case Of esckridef
va Supervisors, a NV, ica 1t seems that the
constitution of the stats OF Michigan has no
R,sfn an Araa IN
which changes the scope and object Of the bill.
as 10 provided In section 90, article II, of our
constitution. Very respectfully,
". &. JONES, Attorney General.