The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-05-09
An Agreed Case May b. Made
up at Once.
TALK OF AN EXTRA SESSION
The History of the Bill in the
Legislature.
WILL EVEN The ACT OF 1899 STAND ?
The State Treasurer Of Opinion That the SUBJ
slitution of the Old Law For The New
One Mears Great Loss Of
Revenue.


A great sensation was created here
yesterday by the News and Observers :
exclusive publication OF the claim of
certain Wilmington lawyers that they
had found a fatal defect in the Revenue
Act passed by the recent Legislature.
The matter presents many interesting
questions and it now seems not un-
likely that an agreed case will be made
up and presented to the Supreme court
fol it's immediate action If the law is
to be tested at ALL it is important that
it be tested at once, as tax listing soon
bo-ins.
Naturally the State officials are much
concerned about the matter and will
at once thoroughly investigate the facts
in regard to the passage OF the Dill.
The Supreme Court has passed on this
very 3o:nt. In the case of Glenn VS.,
Wray GIG N. c.. 1907, decided in May,
$4,000, it is held (opinion by Clark J) as
follows.
The Constitution, Art. H., Sec. A. rend-
ers invalid any act to raise money or
create debt, or lay tax by the State.
or to authorize any county, city or town
to do so, unless the bill shall have pass
ed three several readings on three sever
al DAYS in each House, and unless the
yeas and navs on the second and third
readings shall have been entered on tEe
journals.
If an amendment in a material matter
is made to the BILL the amended bill
should be read over again three times
in each House, with the yea and nay vote
on the second and third readings enter
cd on the journals.
In that case (Glenn VS.. Wray) as in the
one now under discussion (Revenue Act
of 1901 the journals showed that the
Lill passed its three several readings
in each House, on three several days, and
that the yeas and nays were daily en-
tered on the journals on the second and
third readings in each House. Also on
the third reading in the Senate, the bill
was amended and, as thus amended,
was sent back to the House. the amend
mcnt concurred in and the bill duly en-
rolled nnd ratified
Touching these facts Judge Clark, in
course CT the courts opinion in Glenn VS..
Wray says:
''If the amendment were in a ma
terial matter, it would be necessity
that the amended bill should be read
over again three times in each House,
with the yea and nay vote on the sec
ond and third readings entered on
the journals. 1t is the bill in its final
shape, not IN another and different
form which REQUIRES these prelimi-
naries to its validity. 1t would be
clear evasion of the constitutional
guarantees and of the restriction up
on legislative power, if after a bill
has passed one House and two read
ings in the other in the erquired man
ner. Z should then be amended into
something else for. in that case, the
bill, as enacted into law, will have
had only one reading in one House in
the constitutional mode and concur
renee in the other without yea and
nay vote recorded on the journals. In
ordinary legislation. material amend
ments may be made even on the last
reading in the second House, and
when concurred in by tn eother House
the bill is low. In such cases. the
ratification is conclusive of the pass
age of the act But it is otherwise as
to legislation which the Legislature
is restricted from passing except in
a manner specifically pointed out and
prescribed. IN the latter case, any
substantial material amendment re-
ouires the passage of the amended
hill in the prescribed manner, de
novo.'
THE HISTORY OF THE BILL.
The history of the passage of the Reye-
nue. Bill of 1901 is straight and direct
one. On February 22nd Representative
s. NJ. Gattis introduced the bill in the
House. it being bill No. 1913 The bill
passed its first reading and on motion Ct
IL cattic ann cnnies were ordered print