Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1897-04-02

4
M considered in ArA3u-1- in l>.,i
when the Validity ii tia STATE law t.
~ f'.lt Fr."c-i!ghti.- WI tested 10y 4
"a-' carried up through tn" Chanccry
l. TIM Supreme Court. on Il writ ri
c'r'iordri. Tn" principal issue arose
from the contention 81 appellee and
the decision OF the lower court that
the statute was invalid, the argument
holding that the original act, passed
IN 1891, was invalid a to its second
section. and that that rendered the
corresponding section ui the act Of
1893 also invalid, the latter hcing but
an amendment 81 the former. The
history OF the bill is briefly stated as
follows: During the session Of the
Legislature OF 1891, bill was passed
i'll the Senate entitled "An act to pre-
vent priHc-tighting in the State of Ar
KANSAS" which contained but two Sec
tlonS-onc the dcclaratOry section de-
flung prize fighting, with or without
gloves, as an offense, and the other
fixing the grade OF the crime as fell
ony and the punishment accordingly.
The bill went to the House AMI Was
there regularly amended and passed,
the ayes and nays being called and re-
corded. The amendments of the
House were three in number, but only
one-thc second-entered into the con.
tcntion. That amendment changed
the grade OF otiense rs fixed in the
original bill, making the crime mis-
demeanor instead of felony, and fix
ishment accordingly different, by fine
and imprisonment in the county Jail.
When the bill went back to the SEN
ate, it declined to concur in any of the
amendments, and requested the ap-
pointment of a committee of confer
encc. This was done by both houses.
This committee, after consultation,
made a report recommending that the
Senate adopt amendments Nos. l and
3 of the House, and that House recede
from amendment No. 2. The report
was received and adopted in the House
and presumably in the Senate, as no
question was raised as to its disposition
there.
1t was contended by the petitioner
that the constitutional provision was
not observed in the recession by the
House from its amendment No. 2, and
the following words of the constitution
were quoted in support thereof:
"Every bill shall be read at length on
three different days in each house, un-
of the house, and no bill
shall become a law unless on it's final
passage the vote be taken by yeas and
nays, the names of the persons voting
for and against the same to be entered
upon the journal and majority of each
house voting thereon be recorded there
on as voting in favor"
The objection made was that in its
recession from the second amendment
the House did not vote by yeas and
nays, as was required to be done on
the final passage of every bill.
While the court admitted that the
constitutional provision is mandatory,
it held that it should be confined in
its application to cases and phases Of
cases, plainly within the scope of its
meaning"
"The question, narrowed down."
says the court, is the disposition of
amendments, either by vote of adop-
ton, rejection, or recession, a voting
on the final passage of the bill? And
to reduce it to the last analysis, is the
vote on the appointment of a confer
ence committee or on the adoption of
its report, a vote on the final passage
of the bill3 The more important of
these two votes is the one agreeing to
the appointment of the committee, for
conference committee is a sort of
legalized arbitrator, to whom is com.
mitted the function of settling differ.
ences between the two houses, each
house, by its vote, appointing the COM
mittce, agreeing that the legislation
forming the subject matter of the
bill is of more Importance than adher-
ence to any differences; and when this
committee can agree and recommend
course of action, it is practically
adopted as matter of course. There
is no question as to the majority vote,
nor as to how any one may have voted,
for all are voting now on the propriety
of yielding something rather than
needed legislation should fail. These
instances of voting are generally held
as not coming within the constitu-
tional provision on the subject of vot-
ing on final passage of bills"
The court in support of this position
cites decision of the Supreme Court
of Nebraska, in the case of Hull VS..
Miller, wherein it was shown that "a
bill for the act in question, originated
in the Senate, where it was passed by
the constitutional majority, the yeas
and nays being called and duly en-
tered on the journal. In the House
the bill was amended and duly passed
Upon its return to the Senate, all that
the journal discloses with respect to it
is that the amendments OF the House
were adopted; but by what majority,
or in what manner the vote was taken,
the journal OF the Senate was silent"
Tho lou, 1roc ,,o%u,,<l,,@o-J