People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1893-03-03

] "eo NV RtN'NAt hul lAl- Lut OHtEluE Vi Iul
evidence, except portion CT an affidavit made
| 0y Mr. Frank j. Brown, and win not, there.
/ fore undertake TO say what testimony was Of.
fered, nor what it proved. or what it failed to
prove. But this much | say for myself, that
the court could not legally hear any oral testi-
mony given by witnesses nor any affidavit or
/ at1oavits OF party or parties. The court could
/ legally try the case, or the motion Tor an in.
junction upon the record and uDon the record
alone. and IN This cas- the only competent rec
ords were the enrolled bill itself, the legality
/ Of which was attacked and the Journals OF the
/ house and senate that passed that bill. copy
oil the enrolled bill was set out in the petition
/ Upon It's face il purported TO be q legis-
| lauve enactment passed bg the senate and
| the house Of representatives, and ap-
Z proved BY The governor ald the petition
alleged tbG; the Dill thus passed and approved
/ had been pubiished In the official state paper
Every presuT' on Of law was and is in favor
OF the validity # that bill The court had no
| legal right to look into or take any testimony
TO impaach the validity of that bill, except the
journals Of the two houses which passed It,
and it could examine those journals only for
the purpose Of seeing whether the bill in each
house had received a constitutional majority OF
the members thereof representing senatorial
or representative districts created by law.
| Outside Of such evidence, everything that was
offered no matter Of what character, was in.
competent and irrelevant, and should have been
| rejected by the court.
The appOrtionment act passed in 1891 created
forty senatorial districts, defining them. and il
created l2j representative districts, each of
which was properly defined II the journal of
the senate shows that the bill had received the
votes OF twenty-One or more senators represent.
ing districts created by law, then the senate
| Journal would show that the bill was legally
passed by the senate; and II the house journal
should show the names Of persons admitted as
members from the districts created by law, and
should show that sixty three or more OF the
persons so admitted from such districts had
voted in favor OF the passage Of the bill then
he house journal would show that the
dill had been legally passed by the
house Of representatives. II this test.
mony was not offered, then the presumption
Of law would prevail that bill which has been
enrolled and signed by the governor, and pub
lished as required By law, was duly passed by
the two houses of The legislature, and the court
would be bound In law 10 sustain the vdldi.
! ity OF the bill 1t did not and never does de-
volye upon the defendants in any action where
| the validity OF a legislative enactment is
brought in question, to prove affirmatively that
the bill was legally passed. The presumption
OF the law is that it was legally passed; and the
party who attacks II is required to show affirm.
atively, and by the record itself tina. il did not
receive the requisite number OF votes
But Judge HaZen in his opinion speaks OF
two houses of representatives, one known as
the "Dunsmore house" and the other known
! as the Douglass house" and he states that
each Of these houses has been and Is assuming
and Claiming TO be ''the legal house Of repre-.
sentativeS Iquote from his opinion the fol.
! lowing paragraph:
The question now arises whether the courts
have TO determine which one OF these houses
is the legally organized house of repre-
rentativeS"
Judge Ha2en seems TO think that the district
court over which he presi1es had the power to
determine the question l deny it. The dis
trict court never did have, and under constitu-
tional government never can have the power 10
determine this question upon any state OF facts
such as he recileS in his opinion A court
might in proper cases, determine whether
Legislature which passed legislative enact
ment was a legal body, or legally in session. 1
use the word Legislature" which means the
house and the senate. considered together.
Such cases might arise where the journals of
the two houses or OF either OF them. should
show that The legislature had vo unfairly con.
vened at time not authorized by the con
stitution. and not duly called into extraordi-
nary session by proclamation OF the gov.
ernor, and not reconyencd in an adjourned ses.
sion pursuant 10 It's own prior adjournment lie.
gally made. In such cases, CIV, n though the en-.
tire membership Of each body was unoues.
toned IL would not make illegal legislature"
or rather II would not be a legal session: and
such fact being shown by the journals. the court
would be authorized TO adjudge its enlctments
void But when the two houses Of the legisla.
ture meet at the time and the place required
b. the constitution, and proceed TO organize,
each having a membership equal 10 or greater
than malority Of all the members elect there.
to,and these facts appear upon the journal which
the constitution declares thai each house shall
keep and publish" then all questions in re-
gard 10 the validity OF the legislature
are foreclosed No court has any right
10 inquire beyond that for The
purpose of determining the validity Of the leg.
islature. Nor can there be TWO houses OF rep.
resentatives OF the same legislature at the same
time. II there be two bodies OF men. eleb
claiming to be such house. the coordinate
branch OF the legislature, and the executive in
whom is vested part OF the legislative power
and authort;. must for the purpose OF coop
eratiye action in the process OF law making
determine which Of the two is the legal house
and when they have decided that question II ia
settled and forever But lind the following
in Judge Hlzen's opinion
IL cannot be claimed in this case that either
house Is a de facto house because during the
I entire time from the 10Th Of January 10 the
present, both houses have been meeting ia the
same hall, each house has been oisputing the
/ right Of the other. and neither house has had
The exclusive possession OF the hall: but their
| possession has been equal
| III the contention Of defendants Is true an
act can become q law without having passed
the house Of representatives: for II Is claimed
by defendants and argued by their counsel,
that body OF men mas congregate, assume TO
act as house OF representatives, elect its on.
GERS pass bills, and II these bills so passed re.
/ ceiye the recognition Of the senate and the sig.
nature Of the governor they become the laws Of
Kansas, although the persons who composed
the supposed house Of representatives had never
been candidates for that position AMI had no
authority 10 act except assumed authority"
The first clause Of the foregoing extract I
take II was not carefully considered judge
Hazen says, or is made TO say that "itcannol be
claimed in this case that either house is de
facio house; and yet he says that ever since
the ljth OF January each OF the Two bodies con.
tending for supremacy has been in session in
the hall OF the house Of representatives, and II
is not only admitted, but is specially alleged in
the petition, that the "Dunsmore house" acted
as the house OF representatives and passed the
very bill which is now brought in question.
This shows a de facto house beyond question.
Every de iure ofieer and every de lure body