Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1896-12-23

and tlai VIZ may resort TO them In this
case to ascertain whether the two house.
In flc. concurted in the passage of the
before men toned act that IL Il appears
by tho Journals has they did MOI, the
prima farie evidence derived from an
examination OF ihe act Itself will be
overcome.
Mr.. Justice Gray, in Post VS. Super.
visions, Los u. s., 6G7, salu; uTle
comics OF tue Journals, u-rtlfied by the
~ cretqry ui state, ana tue printed
iaufnsls, publi.heI in obedience Of
! law, mo both competent evidence OF
tbs proceedings ~ the iegislatute.n
IN Hail Va Steele, 30 Ala, 5e2, Mr.
! Jus,ice Cloplon said:
We have uniformly held that when the
| Constitution does not require tho i5ur-
unls 10 nldrmutiycly show that a pnrtcti-
lRr thing, necessary to iho validity otthc
| LEGISLATIVE action, was done. mere sils1co
| viii mos iuvalidate, and In such case We
| wii! presume hist she Legislators OBJ
served thoir obligation, aud did not pass
such bin without sufficient proof thst
| tho proper notice had beoh givbu. the
urcpnsillu'iOnoity of an act enrolled,
authenticated by the signatures OF the
presiding officers, and approved and
signed by tho courts arc authorized 10
| treat ii AZ void, because not having been
passed in accordance with the rule. OF
| parliamentary law prescribed In the
| Constitution.
80 IN 5upervlsors w Hoenat, =
| Mimi, $50. Mr.. Justice F.andrau STAT
| az:
The court may inspect the original
| bills ON file with the secretary OF sac,
aud have recourse to the Iournuls OF the
houses OF the legislature to ascertain
whether or not tho law has received all
the constitutional sanctions to its valid
Ivy.
In Gardner w. the Collector, 6 Wall,
400, Nj. Justice Miller, delivering Ihe
opinion Oi the urt, 1t was said:
| We are of opiuion, therefore, on rrln-
| ciple AZ we'll MS OF authority, that when.
ever question arises in u court OF law
| OF tho existence OF u statute, or OF the
| time when the siatuo tOoS effect, OF VI
the precise terms OF a statute, the Judges
| who are called upon TO decide II, have
"A right TO resort TO any source OF in
| formation which in its nature IL capable
OF conveying to the judicial mind Il
clear and satisfactory answer 10 such
| question:; always seeking first for that
| which in lis nature IL most appropriate,
unless the positive law has enacted a
| different rule.
In the case OF the People VS. Mihs-
ney, 10 Michigan, 9Sl, the supreme
court Of Michigan, speaking through
| Mr.. Justlce Cooley, SAID:
As the court are bound ludlcally to
take notice of what the law T., wo have
no doubt 1t is our right rs well ~ our
duty to lake notice not only OF the print
cd statute books, but also OF tho journals
OF the two houses, TO ennplo us 10 de-
termine whether all tho constitutional
requisites TO the validity OF n statute bave
been complied with. Tine printed statute
is not evon piiua facie valid when oher
records, OF which The court must equally
take notice, show that some constitution
al formally is wanting.
This supIeme court OF Illinois, 10 I.
G. II. II. %. vs. the People, l43 Illinois,
1874, SAT-:
1t is not denied that tho amendlory
aci received tho signatures OF the Sleak-
ers oil both houses and the approval OF
the Governor. such Notification Is pima
iucie evidence of its validity IA a lepsla-
live enactment. But 1t Is the stiiled
Inv Of this State, that the Journals Of
either branch of The Legislature MAJ DO
resorted to for the purpose OF overcoming
shown from from the Journals that M act
was not passed In The mode prescribed
by the Constitution.
50 The supreme court Of Florids, in
3 ate w b ~ N 20 Florida, a07, uyl:
II the journals show concluslvely hat
any material portion OF n bill as passed
was omitted in the enrolling, so that IT
may be considered that The net as APP
proved was not passed by tho Legislature
and does not express the Legislative will
the act as approved, at least to the ex'
tent that 1t IL affected by the Omission
must DO held invalid. This Il rule we'll
settled now by the American courts.
Tho Constitution requires tho Keeping
OF journals OF their proceedings by thi
respective houses OF the legislature and
these journals are received rs evidence
Of SUCH proceedings. When AN act Is
| duly approved and published, II IL pumi
ficie law; but II the legislative journal
show that instead OF being passed Il wa
defeated, or that it il no. the same iha
. was passed, 1t is no. law.
, 1itauon OF authorities quoted from
N,fy nun eTCus, If omitted here.
Tne above constituted but L emsl
PORTION oi he case whlcH supporI To-
visws herein oontsndei for. TIey sfi
, | FL Ill HlGhlt uOWtNtts W hhb " tuhf uNtl
twenty states have hel1 That the lut
mails OF the houses Of the IegislsluI,
= IN y 30 looked to in deciding the con
slitutioEaIiiy OF an enrolled act.
5aven states appear 10 have nc
I decisions IA the tubieol: Connection
: Indiana, Kentucky. LOulaia ia, Maine,
Nevada snd Missisippi have decided
: lGat the enrolled act Is c0Dclusive,anG
I, q several ether staies tue decisiVns d[
a not appear 10 be uniform.
. Itw,ll be noIcel rom an exnDHa
} ton OF the cases which hold lht
, affirmative OF this proposition, thattb,
. decisions la the main are not bas ed d
= ANY peculiar constitution pTosisQu,
g tut on principle, auu the grou ud that
u tue Cone luton require tho Journal
y O. bu Kept.
Il Is quite clear that under tbs
American rule adopted by lnst
II moiuriiy Of Tue states OF the Union lh
u legislative journals may be- consuie.
4 10 determine whether tue enrolled OIL
@ was contt.tuiiupeily pas ed, AMI hi
T has also the support OF the text VII,
d t.B
1 That 10 hold a statute VOID, ma
2, work hardsbip uUOn ps0ple Ii Glt
O. -----------------
!: i %,