The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-01-19
NOT GOOD LAW.
Continued From First Page.)


fright to inquire into the act of the gov
ernor. If he believed that an extraor-
binary occasion existed he is the judge
and his action can not be reviewed.
Ex-City Attorney d. c. sTillotson said:
s'It may be interesting to know that the
supreme court of this state has had oc-
casion to designate how far the courts
will interfere with the duties of the
governor. This was the case of Mar
tin, etc, VS.. Ingram, ETC., in 50 Kansas,
page GAL.
1.-The court here holds that it might
control the governor where he IS per-
forming purely a ministerial act but
not when he is in the performance OF an
executive act and on page 655 IN point
can not control says the governor may
also convene the legislature whenever
he chooses On page 657 the court tur-
Their says: 1T will be readily admitted
that the courts can not control any eX-
ecutive act of the governor or any eA-
ecutive power conferred upon him..
Judge Valentine prepared the opin-
ion with his usual care and 1t Should De
interesting reading for those who wish
to set aside the work done by the spec
ial session of the legislature
HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS.
Speaking of Attorney General God
ards opinion holding the special session
of the legislature UNCONSTITUTIONAL, u. u
Clemens said today:
Mr. Godard's opinion is ailing in sew
eral parts of its anatomy. DurlnS Inc
entire existence of the Union, not
single court has ever yet declared VolO
an extra session of a legislature MOI
a single court has ever yet claimed the
right to decide an extra session Vold.
On the contrary, such courts as nave
spoken at all on the subject have en-
phatically diSclaimed any such right
Mr.. GODDARD thinks it unprecedented Tor
an extra session to be held only d
month before the regular session; yet
if he had given so important question
the consideration it's gravity demanded,
he would have perceived that, from
Washington's time, extra sessions OF
congress have been called for Novem-
berthe month preceding the regular
session; and he would have been
astonished, perhaps, that Jefferson ana
other presidents have issued proclama-
lions in June or July because of an Eek
,traordinary occasion" requiring a ses-
sion in November-an extraordinary
OCCASION which could wait five months
but would be done for in six
II do not now recall that any attorney
general of the United States has ever
obliterated an extra session OF con-
gress.
Mr. GODDARD says the courts have the
same power to decide the governors
acts unconstitutional that they have to
declare unconstitutional the legislature
acts. 1 presume that is true. But every
bill must be read for three separate
days in each house, unless in case of
emergency Has the supreme court
ever held an act void because no real
emergency existed for dispensing with
three readings of the bill? On the con-
trary, our supreme court has declared
the legislative judgment conclusive:
Not only so, but where the journal
shows three readings on the same day,
and nothing further, our supreme court
holds the act valid because the legis-
lature has power to act thus in cases
of emergency. Think of some of the
bills which have been passed under an
emergency. Bills to change Robert
Stick-in-the-mud's name to George W.
Hindsight; to build a bridge across the
north fork of Coonskin creek; to require
that in official documents the names OF
counties and the name of the state shall
be printed in lower case and the names
of railroad companies in capitals OF
course, these cases of emergency
would be overruled by Mr.. GODDARD, but
courts are more modest about destroy
ing legislation. In short. the pointed
answer given by courts themselves to
the question: Had the governor the
right to call an extra session. has al
ways been-It'S none of your business.
But, agree with every line of the
attorney generals opinion, and still his
conclusion is erroneous, for the extra
session was a de factO legislature. The
governor had power to call an extra
session in a certain contingency. He
issued his proclamation for that pur-
pose. The legislature actually con-
Vened under that proclamation. which
was at least color of authority for it to
convene. Hence, if the proclamation
legal, for at least a de facto legislature
was in session. Need any one at this
day be told that the acts of a de facto
legislature are just as valid as if passed
by legislature with gilt top and back?
Not to put too fine point upon it, the
attorney generals opinion is mere
solemn nonsense. 1t might excite even
Bunsby's jealousy