The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-12-23

X n L. vs. Inc people. l45 his 454
said:
1T is not denied that the amendatory
act-receiVed the signatures of the speak
ers OF both houses and the approval OF
+ the governor Such verifica ton is prima
facie evidence Of its validity as a legts-
lative enactment But it is the settled
/ law OF TINS state that the journals OF
/ either branch OF the legislature may be
ing sueh prinsa facie evidence. It may
( be SHOWN from the journals that an act
was not passed in the mode prescribed by
I the constitution"
So the supreme court of Florida. in
state vs. Brown. % Fla 407. says:
III the journals show conclusively that
any material portion of a bill as passed
was omitted in the enrolling. so that ii
may De considered that the act as aD-
proved was not passed by the legislature,
and does not express the legislative will.
the ACT as approved. at least to the ex-
tent Inat II is affected by the omission.
must be held invalid. This IS a rule well
settled now by the American courts.
Inc constitution requires the keeping
or journals of their proceedings by the
respective houses of the legislature and
these journals are received as evidence
OF such proceedings. When an act is
duly approved and published, it is prima
tacie law. but II the legislative jour
mails show that instead of being passed
1t was defeated, or that it is not the
same that was passed, ii is not law"
SeogWlck on const of stat. and const.
N-iiQ cu-j sections 81 ana
Greenleaf on Evidence, sec. 491.
wharton on Evidence. sec. 1899.
Henderson VS.. the state "a Ala. 50.
State vs. Wright. IA Ore. 3s5.
Chlcot county VS.. Davis, 40 Ark 200.
Spangler VS.. Jacoby, Il Ills 297.
Currie vs. Southern Pacific Co., p Ore.
State VS.. Robinson, 20 Neb. 90.
osburn ct al. VS.. StaIey ct al, W. Va.
In re Roberts, Colo. SIS.
Hart VS.. Hagood. Is S. C. &c.
commissioners of Leavenworth county
VS.. Higginbotham, II Kans. 81.
koehler g. Lange VS.. Hill. 90 Iowa 543
wise vs. Biggar, 20 Va. 269.
oakland Paving company VS.. Hilton, SO
People VS.. Lunn. 50 Cal. A1.
Gldewell VS.. Martin, 81 Ark. $50.
State VS.. Robertson, Il Kans. 200.
State VS.. Van Duyn, "a Neb $50.
State VS. Kieswetter. IS Ohio st. 254.
Berry vs.. Bait. & Drum Point r. r.
Co., Il Nd. 49,
State ex rel. VS.. Algood. 81 Tenn. 1ss.
State VS.. Platt, 2 S. c. $50.
Brown VS. Nash, / Wyo. So.
The people vs.. Campbell. 3 Gilman. 1885,
State VS.. Mcbride 4 Mo 1903.
STATE VS. Mead. Il Mo. 266.
The. Southwark Bank VS.. the common
wealth, IS Pa. ST. 446.
The City of Watertown VS.. Cady, 20
Wis SOL
State ex rel. Construction Co. VS.. Bah
bits. as Ohio ST. lis.
Meracle VS.. Down. 81 Wis 323
Territory VS.. O'Connor 8 Dakota 397.
Hughes VS.. FELTON,, II Colo. 4s9.
san Mateo county VS.. S. P. R. R. Co..
Sawyer 23S.
State VS.. Deal, q Fla. 2es.
People vs. Burch, 81 Mich. 40S
Burritt VS.. commissioners of state con-
tracts. 100 Ills. 322.
sos.
The above constitute but small por-
ton of the cases which support the views
herein ,contended for; They are sufi-
states have held that the journals of the
houses of the legislature may be looked
to in deciding the constitutionality of an
enrolled act.
g Am. Eng. Ency. of Law 2OS.
Seven states appear TO have no decis-
Ions on the subject. Connecticut, Indi-
ana. Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine. Ne
vada and Mississippi have decided that
the enrolled act is conclusive, and in sew
eral other states the decisions do not
appear TO be uniform.
Field VS.. Clark. 143 U. S. $40. 661 and
note.
1t will be noticed from an examination
of the cases which hold the affirmative
of this proposition. that the decisions, in
the main, are not based on any peculiar
constitutional provision, but on principle,
and the ground that the constitution re-
quires the journals to be kept.
1t IS quite clear that under the Ameri-
can rule adopted by large majority of
the states of the Union the legislative
journals may be consulted to determine
whether the enrolled act was constitu-
uonaily passed, and this has also the
support of the text writers.
That. TO hold statute void, may work
a hardship upon people is quite true, but
that fact has no more force when the
law IS held void, because OF the violation
OF a mandatory provision of the con-
stitution. than when ii is held void for
any other reason. 1t is the solemn duty
OF courts TO declare what the law is
regardless of consequences
In this case looking TO the journals
there appear to be no affirmative state
mentS recorded which conflict with the
validity or the enrolled act, and the
mere silence of the journals. as TO the
mandatory provision OF the constitution.
here in question. viii not justify the hold
ing of the act void. because the pre-
sumption in such case that the legislat-
ure proceeded properly is conclusive.
SECRET BALLOT.
am also unable to agree with the chief
Justice in his views as TO a secret bal
lot. The constitutional provision on this
question, art :, sec. s. is as follows:
A. elections shall be by secret ballot.
Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued 10 prevent the use of any machine
Or mechanical contrivance for the our-
pose of receiving and registering the votes
cast at any election: provided, that Sc
crecy in voting be preserved"
This is an express provision for i Sc
cret ballot. and clearly the word secret
should in the Interpretation of this sec
ton, receive its plain and ordinary mean
ing. because II does not appear from the
context that any other meaning was in
tended by the trainers of the constitu
ton. In fact, the words secret ballot
appears TO be emphasized, for while the
use Of a machine or mechanical contriv-
ance is permitted for certain purpose.
II IS only permitted, provided secrecy in
voting is preserved.
Used as an adjective. Webster defines
the wore secret as hidden concealed. - !
As ! noun. something studiously con-
cealed; a thing kept from general knoWl- |
edge; what is not revealed, or not to be
revealed Doubtless this latter is the /
sense in which the words secret ballot /
Were used in the constitution. This view
is in harmony with public thought and /
expression respecting the ballot systems /
IT the time of and before the holding /
of the constitutional convention. and the |
courts have the right TO take notice of I
the history of the times for the purpose
Of ascerta:ning the intent of the trainers /
or The constitution. 1t is well under /
stood that the questions of open and |
secret ballots created much discussion in /
the several states, as well as in Utah /
territory. on account of the improper |
influence, whether supposed or real /
which could be brought to bear upon the !
humble citizens by their employers. or /
those 70 whom they felt under obliga- /
ticns, or which might result from wealth /
and station.
policy, and the trainers Of the constitu-
ton doubtless intended to make the veil |
of secrecy irnpenetra bic. so that the |
voter could make promises to whom he 4
pleased and vote as he pleased. without /
fear of afterwards having the secrecy of /
his ballot violated The object to secure
an INDEPENDENT ballot would be very i'm
perfectly accomplished II the secrecy was /