Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1901-04-10
CONTINUED from second pagel

\COOtlnle rom StCatu pake.D
in that event, ut shall be a law" In
both of these clauses, the precise Ian
guage of the Constitution Of the State of
Indiana is used, while the clause of our |
Constitution covering the case presented;t
uses the language "iG shall become u |
law"
IS supported by the language "se', out u
is in harmony with the construction plac- |
ed upon it by the le .isativa department. !
Of government since the adoption of the !
Constitution. We believe it is we'll set
tied by the decisions of this court that
long continued anil conte,"p"ra"eous
construction placed by the co-ordinat'
procedure in such coordinate branch Of
government, should he given great
| weight. This rule has been followed IN a
number of cases, and most clearly aud
forcibly stated in the case of The State Y.
Gray, q Nevada, s7&
| In the case OF the Mining Company v.
Seawell, Justice Hawley, discussing this
| matter, uses the following language:
"But in this connection it must. as we
think, I've admitted that although the
action of the Legislature is not final. its
decision upon this point is to be treated
by the courts with the consideration
which il due to n CO ordinate Departments
of the State Government and in case of
reasonable doubt as to the meaning of
the words, the coust, ucti"n give, 1"
them by the Legislature ought to pre-
vail.''
Mining Company V. Se,well, IL New.
Commencing with the first session OF
the Legislature after the adoption Of the
Constitution, and continuing doAn to
the Nineteenth 81 sSion in 1899, in every
instance. 18th possibly one exception,
when Legislative action WAS taken upon
vetned bills. and such bills were passed
over the veto the Legislature by its act
Of attestation has construed sec ion b as
we conStrue it, In the first session Il
: large number of bills we're returned to
the Legislature with the siovernor's OBJ
Ijeclions, and i'll every instance after pas.
sage over his objections they were agai;
atlested by the officers named in section
Is ofthe Constitution, two of whom, the
President of the Senate and the Speaker
Of the Assembly. We're fresh from the
Convention which framed the Constitu
ton.
The Supreme Court of the United
States. we believe, has even gone furthe
!, and in the case of Field V. Clark, lab u
. 5. GAO, has approved the doctrine lait
down in the case of The State v. Swf.
Notwithstanding the Federal Constitu
ton contains no provisions expressly re
: curing that enrolled bills which hav
passed Congress to be at:ested by tn
y signatures of the presiding officers of tn
two Houses. and bases its conclusion
upon the usage, orderly conduct of iegis
:, lative proceedings and the rules unde
which Congress has acted since tn
organization of the Government.
The relator further contends that tn
construction placed upon these section
:. by the Legislature is without force fo
the reason that the officers have inserte
over their signatures in many instances
a history of the action taken. and hav
not uniformly placed their aitestatio
=, upon the face of the bill. 1t is sufficies
to say in answer to this contention, thu
we are not willing to declare that b.
cause of an abundance of precautiol
manifested by the officers, that the
work should fail; neither are we willin
to sacrifice the substance of the Const
tuition to a mere matter of form whe
form is not the essence.
For the reasons given, we are claarl
=. of the opinion that the peremptory VIZ
~ should be denied.
concur: Belknap,J J.
dissent: Fitzgerald,J,
Filed April 9Th, 1901,
..1 EUGENE HOWELL,
=, Secretary of State and Ex-officio Cler
of the Supreme Court.
Filed with printer for publicatio
April 9th. 1901.
EUGENE HOWELL.
he ->-<--