The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-05-20

the tins Of the vote on Whist 10 specified -
finAi passage (sffer the third reading} IN
NO manner Affects the dnai rssaaee, ana
failing 20 record them il IN no sense
violasson Of the constitutional provision
on che subject The attorney general
p.onounces the law unconstitutional IN
asmueh ~ IL il not the Law passed By the
lexisl afure: that the amendments shown
by the record 20 hare passed one or both
houses do not appear in the bill - finally
approved. The state maintains that this
presumption OF variance IS not TO be sup
ported By evidence which il holds 10 Be
inadnissabse because unauthentie, and re-
asserts the wei.-essabiished principle that
where the journals are silent is 10 TO be a.
suraed that such legislative action Was
taken as can be construed in support OF
the constit0,ionality Of the statute at Is
sue. In this respect-thas - to say. If the
ground Of the attorney. general 10 ienabls
the deficiency and appropriation bills
are both unconstitutional. as from both
the approved bills amendments shown BY
the journals 10 have been passed are miss
ing. Again, IL the court decides to 90
into the journals and behind. IL opens for
presentation and proof as constitutional
tests any number Of important laws now
IA force and effect. in which similar ofnis-
sions or faults are discovered. As to Mr..
Jones' far-ietched theory that bill No.
iS01< was original and for that reason
came within the ten days constitutional
inhibition. il is held 70 be insupportabie.
In the reyor. Of the joint committee they
specifically state that bill No. 1904, as
comprehending the entire subject Of state
lands. 10 reported favorably as substitute
for senate bill No. IG0. This joint COM
riit;ee was none other than q committee
Of conference. In two particular instances
where the trainers of the consti-
tuition feared they might go too far
or not far enough in indicating the
paths of legislative procedure they
conceded the unqucstioned principle that
the law making body is qualified to
define the methods Of making laws. Ar
tcie 2, section 9, Of the constitution. says:
Each honse NAV determine the rules
Of its own proceedings" while section 81
provides: mo bill shall become law
until the same shall have been signed by
tho presiding officer Of each Of it, two
houses in open session, and under such
rules - the legislature shall prescribe"
Mr.. Jones fortiies himself behind section
81. which says: NO bill shall be consid-
cred in either house unless the time of its
Introduction shalt have been at least ten
days before the final adjournment Of the
Legislature, unless the Legislature shall
otherwise direct by vote Of two-thirds
OF all the members elected TO each house.
said vote 20 be taken BY yeas and nays
and entered upon the journal" The first
of the joint rules. by the narrowest con-
struction applied under the quoted con-
ssitutional concession. amply defines the
character Of the substitute bill. 1t pro-
vides that . bill embracing - whole cub
icct matter" reported hack to the legisia-
ture in the form Of new bill shall be
treated as an amendment, unless such bill
il comprised entirely OF original matter.
As TO the claim Of the attorney general
that this substitute bill changed the scope
and object of the original and was there
fore passed in violation Of the constitu.
ton. both Judge Greene and Mr.. Corson
in the clearest manner showed that the
Substitute comprehended the one general
subject provided for In the original senate
bill. No 100. which was the creation OF q
state commission which should manage
and dispose of the lands Of the state.
In opening his argument Mr.. Jones
POINTS out wherein the bill finally signed
by the governor differs from that passed
by the senate and house. He says there
are four serious constitutional objections
10 the bills
Ftryt-k was not introduced into either house
Of the state Legislature ten days before the date
OF Anal adjournment ~ provided by section So,
article 2. OF the state constitution.
Sccond-lt appssrs from the history Of the bill
tnat section aud section "a OF the enrolled bill
are substantially different from ouch sections
81 they passed both houses OF the state iegisIa-
tire.
Thifd-It appears that an important section
was added % the bill in the house and was
Fart OF the bill! when IL passed that body in the
regular way, which section Was not acted upon
by the senate in any way and does not appear in
tie enrolled bill.
Fourth--It sppears from the journals tina, the
houss and senate did not pass the same bill:
tnat after the hill had received . preliminary
consideration BY the senate IL was sent 10 the
kouas and important changes made in the bill
taiors 70 passed that body: that when it was
returned from the house to the senate II was
fsos the same bill which the senate had thereto
fyre passed. but IL wes never passed again in
taas body In the manner provided by section -.
article ,, of the constitution. The ayes and
Gays wsre not called any Of the amendments
ca the bill a. amended
a. Judge Greene recites the refusal of the
attorney general 10 approve REALTORS bond.
and insists:
Firs,-That his objection that the statute 10
unconstitational. even supposing the objection
H. be we'll founded. is not good ground tor re-
.asing his approval.
second-rhat hts objection IL not we'll founded.
Thirs-rhat. tire facts set forth in our aft
aavtt being admitted. we are eatitied 20 the
writ o! msndamus TO compel him to approve.
fourih--That the alternative writ shows =
Trima facts case. and. therefore. IL not demur-
rahlc
Judge Greene quotes = large number Of
rreceients TO sustain his position.
Mr.. Corson taxes up Attorney General
Jones' four propositions in detail. and
makes strong argument against each,
i eating numerous authorities.
BERlNG SEA PATROL FLEET.