The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-02-07

wherever lodged. whether in the execu-
| tive, the legislative or the judicial de-
partment, has always been and possibly
always will be abused in isolated cases.
And 1t is not every abuse of power by
the executive or the legislative branch
of the government that can be reviewed
by the judicial branch.
In 1884 Governor Click convened the
legislature in special session because the
1Ve stock interests of the state were
threatened with a supposed infectious
disease known as the foot-and-mouth
disease. To the governor, this was suf-
hcient to satisfy him that an extraOr-
binary occasion existed under the con-
stitution. If he had been a lawyer, a
doctor or a merchant he might not have
considered the threatened spread of this
disease of sufficient Importance to JUS
Trying converting the legislature. The
validity of that special session has
never, thus far, been questioned. If the
courts may review the governors deciS-
ion, they may even now review and de-
termine that the threatened spread of
that disease among the live stock of
this state did not constitute an extraor-
binary occasion, and may strike down
| the laws of that entire session; for
lapse of time does not cure an uncon-
stitutional legislature or an unconstitu-
tiOnal law.
In the determination of the question
of converting the legislature the gov
ernor is supreme, but when the legisla-
ture has convened, his authority ceases.
The legislature then determines for
itself what laws shall be passed. 1t
may enact laws in accordance with the
views of the governor or it may ignore
his recommendations and pass other
laws in opposition TO his expressed
views; or it may Immediately adjourn
without transacting any business what
ever. In the case at bar the legislature,
when convened, proceeded to enact laws
recommendations This was a Iegisla-
tive recognition of the necessity of the
call. To allow the courts to strike down
this special session for the reason that
no extraordinary occasion existed is to
place the opinion of the court upon a
question of fact against that of the
chief executive officer of the state and
the legislature.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.
The federal constitution provides that
the president may convene one or both
houses of congress upon extraordinary oc-
caslons- This constitutional PROVISION Is
to the nation what ours is to the state:
VIII it be contended that the action Of
the president in converting one or ooth
houses of congress. when in his opinion
an t 9xgeney exists is sTb}e f to + review new
ton may be endangered, either by internal
in his duty under the constitution. con-
Venes congress, they take such action as
before the courts as to the legality of that
that no extraordinary occasion existed for
its converting, or that the facts recited
sufficient to justify the conclusion that an
extra ordinary occasion existed, and there
| without authority and void. 1t would
seem that the bare statement of this
binary occasion did exist, but the chief ex-
sufficient to justify the conclusion of its
existence. and does not recite his conclus-
bnt IN nnder he ea the tn eatTe BODY
meets and recognizes the necessity of their
fir7er hxTT SING llx he sal
that all laws passed at such session are
invalid because the recitals in the procla,
for the conclusion that an extraordinary
sde Of fb thg e and n
that sufficient facts do not exist to justify
must be because the courts can try that
question Of fact the same as any other
adopt is that the decision of the executive
is conclusive and that the issuance of the
Contain, is conclusive proof that the ex-
traordinary occasion existed
NOT WITHOUT AUTHORITY.
We are not without authority upon this
MI. Cooley. in section Al of his work
cussing the question of certain acts being
conclusive, says:
the decision when made must, from the
nature of things, be conclusive and subject
it may be in the opinion of other depart
ments or other officers. But in other
to be passed upon again before the duty
is completely performed. The first of
PARTICULAR question is plainly addressed to
the discretion judgment of some de-
partment or officer so that the interfer-
ence of any other department or officer
with view to the substitution of its own
discretion or judgment in the place of that
to which the constitution has confined the
decision. would be impertinent and in
trusive. Under every constitution cases
of this description are to be met with:
classify them. there
doubt when the case is properly deter
mined to be one of this character that the
cision final. We will suppose again the
constitution empowers the executive to
convene the legislature on extraordinary
ize the Intervention of anyone else in de-
termining what is and what is not such
is obvious that the question is addressed
exclusively to the executive, and neither
the legislative nor the judicial department
can interfere to compel action If the exec
utiVe decides against it, to enjoin action
if, in his opinion, the proper occasion has
arisen
GOVERNORS DECISION FINAL.
But there are cases in which the Ques-
ton of construction is more equally ad-
dressed to two or more departments of
the government, and it then becomes i'm
one is binding upon the other, or whether
each is to act upon it's own judgmen
nor, being empowered by the constitution
to convene the legislature upon eXtraor-
binary occasions, has regarded a particu-
lar event as being such an occasion and
has issued his proclamation calling them
together with view to the enactment of
some particular legislation which the event
seems to call for, and which he specifies in
his proclama ton Now, the legfsla ture are
to enact the laws upon their own view
$1,000 ,-.-, m. $780,,