The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1903-03-22

! claimed that this act of congress was a
nullity for the reason that a section of
| the bill which actually passed both houses
Of congress was omitted from the bill as
enrolled. 1t was on behalf of the appel
| lants.
THAT a bill signed by the speaker of
the house Of representatives and by the
president OF the senate, presented to and
approved by the president of the United
States and delivered by the latter TO the
| secretary of state, as an act passed by
congress, does not become a law of the
United States if it had not been passed
by congress-
"The court in the opinion rendered by
Harlan ]. conceded the force of that
argument and held it unquestionabie, but
held that the question before it for con-
sideration was of a different character.
Note the following language found on
page SO:
but this concession of the correctness
of the general principles for which the
appellants contend and does not deter
mine the precise question before the
court; it remains to inquiries as to the
nature of the evidence upon which the
whether the bill originating in the house
of representatives or the senate, and as
serted to have become a law, was or was
not passed by congress-
The court cites n number of cases in
support OF the conclusion to which it
arrives and enters into an extended dis
cussion of the principles involved which it
is needless for me to rehash. Suffice il to
make one short quotation from the
opinion found on page $50 TO show exactly
what was the holding of the court:
We are of the opinion for the reason
stated. that it is not competent for the
appellants to show, from the journals of
either house from the reports of commit
tees or from other documents printed by
authority of congress that the enrolled
bills designated II. r. 94i6, is finally
passed contained section that does not
appear in the enrolled act in the custody
of the state department Believing then
that there can be no shadow OF doubt
remaining but what we must beguided
alone by the provisions of the enrolled
act. We are led to inquire what now is
the law regulating the assessment of pro-
perty. Substitute House Bill No. s. as
enrolled contained no mention of the time
when it shall take effect. In such con-
tingency. the following is the rule of law.
Am. & Eng, Ercyc. OF Law Vol. %. page
213:
- If no time is specified when statute
shall be in force it becomes effective from
and after its passage. That is, from and
after the point of time when its existence
is perfected When the governors appro-
val is necessary. an act is considered
perfected from ;he time of such approval
Upon the date of the taking effect of
Substitute House Bill No. 3. the law regu-
lating the assessment of property by
county assessors was repealed and upon
this date the repeal of the law effected
the abolishment of the Office of county
assessor. Whatever injustice this may
work to individuals, it cannot effect the
legality of the act abolishing the Office:
because no principle of law is more firm
ly established than that a public officer
has no vested right in his Office.
Il beg to expires sit then as my opinion
that we are now under the township as
SCISSOR form of assessment and no other
is legal or could be effective.
4 am aware Of no method of avoiding
the difficulty brought upon US by this
state of affairs other than by the calling
of a special session of the legislature and
a correction by them of the error
You have also asked whether under
the provision Of law that an officer may
retain his Office until his successor is
elected and qualified
The county assessor in this instance
may not serve as such county assessor
until such time rs their successor. the
township assessors are appointed or elect
ed. In reply to this inquiry I have TO
say that it is my opinion that the repeal
Of the law creating the Office of county
assessor causes a vacancy 10 exist aboI-
ishing the Office Of county assessor and
there viii be no such thing as a successor
to the Office Of county assessor. Upon this
point ! beg TO refer you to the case OF
State vs. Harris. Is y w page 1lel. Re
specuully, y. c. ROBERTS.
Attorney General.