The record-union., 1893-06-08
LEARNED LAWYERS.
What They Had to Say on the Ca pitaI
Removal Matter.
Mr.. Hatfield's Strong Argument, and
Warehouses; and DeImas' Replies
Mr.. johnson To-day.

"S"lh aHu pEOuuceu Lne OIlSiAaA Va eHS
proposed constitutional amendment,
which was offered in evidence on the
part of the defense and admitted.
Counsel for defendant made pro JornaG
motion for a nonsuit, and pro lorna de-
NAL of the motion was made.
Mr.. Hatfield attacked the proposed
amendment, stating that title to reso-
luton was not required that it was not
proposed amendment to move the seat
of government from Sacramento to San
Jose, but proposed to retain the seat of
government at San Jose, and that Sacra-
mento, where the seat of government
now is, is nowhere mentioned.
He read the amendment, and stated that
it did not provide that san Jose should
raise 81, 100000, but that it states that the
seat OF government is at San Jose, and
should not be removed unless ten acres
were donated for a site and 81 200, 900 in
money raised.
Further, he said the journal of the 18th
OF March showed that Senator VOORHEES,
asked to have his vote changed on the
record, as he had not voted aye as the
clerk announced, and his request was
granted; but when Senator Hart
asked for the same change with regard to
his own vote the Senate denied it. The
Journal shows also that the Senate al
Hart to be spread upon its journal, which
shows that
HE DID NOT VOTE AYE
On the passage of the resolution, and as
neither he nor Senator VOORHEES, voted
aye, the resolution really received only
twenty-siX votes, which was not major
ity.
He also contended that the law pro-
vldes that resolution must be engrossed
nfODQrIV N
where it is passed before being taken to
the other house, which was not done in
this case.
The Assembly had, he said, right to
concur in the resolution or TO make any
changes III it If they wished. The jour
nal OF the Assembly shows that they did
not concur, but made some changes in
words, which he pointed out. The reso-
luton, as passed by the Assembly, then,
was not the same as that which was
passed by the Senate, and therefore the
original resolution did not pass both
houses.
CASES IN POINT.
He quoted the case of Prescott VS.. the
City Trustees, a decision by the Supreme
Court OF Illinois, wherein the Court de-
cided that, although the bill was enrolled,
yet, as it did not pass both houses with
out-changes, it was not a law.
He also quoted the case of Evans VS..
Lynch, in the same State, where the Jour
nal did not show the bill to have been
read three times, and the decision was to
the same effect. In the case of Miller
and others VS.. Goodwin and others, in
which it was claimed that the journal was
irregularly kept, the Court held that
whatever the journal showed was conclu-
sive. Several other rulings were read by
Mr.. Hatfield, ali having the same ten
dency.
He spoke of the fact that the words "of
ha baI
sembly resolution. If this had been a
mistake, he argued, it would have been
corrected by the clerks, but as it was not
so corrected, the presumption is that it
was Intentional, as there was plenty of
opportunity to correct any mistake in the
matter.
Mr.. Hatfield quoted the case Of Koehler
and Lang VS.. Hill, an Iowa case, which
involved the constitutional amendment
for prohibition, which was passed by the
people by $4,000 majority, and went into
effect. In that State an amendment is
passed by one Legislature, submitted to
the next one, and if passed by a two
thirds vote, is submitted to the people.
After al this had been gone through, it
was contended that the omission of the
words, "or to be used,'' in the amend
ment passed by one House, as shown bv
its journal, invalidated the amendment.
and the Supreme Court held that such
was the case, and declared it unconstitu-
tional.
Mr.. Hatfield called attention to the fact
that the provisions of the Constitution
are declared to be either mandatory or
directory. The section which is sought
to be amended declares that Sacramento
shall be the Capital of the State, unless
removed by law.
Further, he asserted, that when a par
ticular way OF doing thing is clearly
stated in the Constitution, or the law, it
must be carried out in that way, and not
in any other, and the courts OF this and
other States have so decided. He called
attention to a number OF authorities on
this point.
RULES NOT OBSERVED.
Mr.. Hatfield made the point that Senate
Rule No. 10, which he introduced in evil
dence, states positively that every resO-
luton and bill must be engrossed and a
copy thereof submitted to the Assembly.
This, it was claimed by Mr.. Hatfield, was
not done, and therefore the resolution
was not legally passed.
In introducing in evidence the Senate
journal of March 18th, which contains
the statement of Senator Hart as to his
vote, Mr.. Hatfield contended that the
Senate, in adopting the report, admitted
that Senator Hart voted no." and such
being the case, the resolution only re-
celved twenty-siX votes, which was not
sufficient to carry it.
His contention that the Assembly Jour-
nal shows deficit and also difference
in words from the Senate amendment.
as passed, and was therefore void, was
fortified by the large number of decisions
quoted from various State Supreme
Courts.
MR.. WAREHOUSES; ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Morehouse, in commencing his
argument, stated that Section of Article
XVIII. has reference to constitutional
amendments solely, and that is the only
question Tor discussion. The question is:
Did the Legislature properly introduce
an amendment for action on it? Did il
properly pass the amendment and prop
erly record its passage? he read the pro-
vision for amendments, and repeated that
this was the only question to be discussed
AS between decisions of Supreme
Courts of other States and of our own
State, We should be guided by our own
decisions in preference 10 others. Ii
certain construction has been placed on a
section by the courts of this State by the
executive and legislative bodies, we
should give preference 10 that construc-
ton. Until recently the original bills, as
enrolled, have been accepted as the best
evidence on any point involved in con-
neetion with them, and there lay no re-
sort beyond them; but this custom has
been recently modified, so that when
there is claimed 10 be defect in the en-
rolled bill il is now allowable to 90 be-
hind il and consult the journals to find
the real state of the facts. Where the
journal is referred to, however, it is only
when there is dispute about the facts
concerning the primary steps.
He Quoted largely from various decis-
ions in different States, the DRIFT OF his ar
gument and quotations from authorities
being to the effect that it was not neces-
sary to enter the whole subject matter of