The Weiser signal. [volume] (Weiser, Idaho) 1890-1904, 1897-07-22
FEE BILL DECISION.

every observing person in this state
to learn of the decision of the SUI
preme court on the fee bill Not
that the fee bill should not very prop
erly have the pins knocked from un-
der it, but that the court should take
the particular grounds it does for de
claring it void The court holds that
it can go back of the enrolled bill
to determine whether or not the con-
stitution has been violated in its pass
age, and that if the journal does not
show that any particular thing was
done, the assumption is that it was
not done. The provision requiring
reading on seperate days can not be
suspended except by aye and nay
vote on each measure on which such
action is desired, and it cannot be
suspended excepting in case of ur-
gency. The practice has been to sus-
pend by unanimous consent or by
omnibus resolution. Again it is held
that bill materially amended in
either house, when cent back to the
house where it originated must be
treated as new bill and read three
separate days.
The court has often declared laws
tie be in conflict with the constitution,
but never before has it attacked the
MANNER in which the bill was passed
How far the courts are privileged to
control or become the custodians of
the acts of the state legislature, or
what is the limit to which the legisla-
tive body can be the judge of its own
powers or decide the expedlency and
urgency of certain action is n matter
of considerable doubt with us Just at
present. The court cites that the
constitution provides that rules may
be suspended for the passage of an
act only in case of urgency" and
that rules were suspended when there
was no ''urgency" appears to be the
ground for declaring the act illegal.
The constitution is certainly faulty
in not defining the meets and bounds
of ''urgency" so that it would be
plain when law came under that
head and was subject to suspension
of rules in passage; either that or il
should have stated whether it was in
tended that the legislature itself OF
the courts should be the judge of the
''urgency' of the case. We are un.
able to form an opinion this early as
TO whether the decision is well or ILL
advised. If the way in which some
laws are passed is so faulty that they
will not stand in United States courts
then the sooner the practice is rem
edied the better On the other hand.
we dread the result of this decision
and fear the chaos into which it may
possibly throw u.s. If these grounds
are tenable in one law they are in al
PASSED in same manner, which would
wipe out large part Of the statutes.
1t throws the gates wide to endless
and bewiIdering litigation. Its effects
are already noticed in Washington
county in the payment of liquor IL
cense, under protest at the last meet.
ing of the board, it being the inten-
ton to attack the license act on the
line OF the decision The gambling
bill is to be attacked. The secretary
of the state is deluged with request;
for copies of the journal-evidence
that lawyers all over the state ar,
looking after the manner of passag,
of the particular act bearing on TIL,
case in which he is interested, anc
that laws will be attacked by whole
sale in the courts. Suppose the ac
providing for the trial of criminals Oh
information and without grand jury
indictment be shown to have beer
passed in same manner? The peni
Tertiary will be stormed with writs Of
habeas corpus. If this decision
stands, the results may be grave and
direful. 1t seems that the same
question once arose in the supreme
court of Texas, and that body, sitting
as tribunal of authority, rendered