The Hawaiian gazette., 1904-01-01

a record although required by the Or
ganic Act.
The general reasoning on which
Courts refuse TO look into legislative
journals for the purpose Of impeachlng
the legality Of the enactment of a stat
ute Is that the journal is liable to be
tempered with or being hastily pre-
pared to omit by mistake maybe
things which we know were done by
the Legislature and fail TO record cor
rectly what was done.
A further reason for the same view
is that no one could rely on law being
valid until he had seen the journal OF
each House and ascertained whether
the law had been enacted correctly.
Even then it would be essential, be-
fore finally concluding that there was
law to walt until the Courts had
passed upon these things. All this in
many cases would work incalculable
harm and uncertainty and cause grew
Gus uncertainty about the validity of
laws. Legislative journals may not
be published or be accessible to the
public at large for a long time after
the laws are published and take effect.
In Field VS.. Clark, 143 U. s. 649-671
(36 L. e. 294-303) this question was
fairly presented.
While claiming, then, as defendants
counsel do that the County Act cannot
be impeached by showing from the
House Journal that 1t was not enacted
as required by the Organic Act, upon
passing to a third reading, it is also
submitted that the showing made from
the House Journal. If admitted as COM
petent testimony, would not be suffi-
cient to invalidate the Act.
1t appears before the Act went to
Conference Committee 1t had been read
three times in the House and it is to
be inferred that upon the third reading
the ayes and noes were taken.
Amendments ARE not subject to the
same rule as bills in regard to the
number of readings. They must be
germane to the subject of the bill and
are not required to be read three times
nor does concurrence by one house in
amendments made by the other re-
quire the ayes and nays and their
entry upon the journal under the pro-
vision for these things on the final pas
sage of bills" Sutherland, Sec. 40 and
cases cited from Ohio, South Carolina
and Illinois.
There is no doubt that it was the in
tention of the House upon adopting by
an aye and no vote the report of the
Conference Committee, to/pass the bill
as amended. If the chairman had put
the question: Shall the conferee report
be adopted and the bill passed." there
would be no question that the bill was
passed, and it is submitted that the
adoption of the conference report, taxi
en- in the formal manner in which it
was taken by ayes and noes, is fully
equivalent to the passage of the bill as
amended.
There are not wanting cases that
such requirement in the Organic Law
| is directory and not mandatory and
that failure to comply with it does
not invalidate the law. Such appears
| to be still the law in Ohio and was the
law in California until its new Consti-
| tuition made the requirement. impera-
tive. State VS.. Corrington, 80 Ohio
1O2; Washington VS.. Page, Cal. 1888;
Pierpont vs. Crouch, 10 Cal. 315.
Is not the law of the great States of
| anu Soiioiiild SOOu enough ZOE
Hawaii, at any rate in its early efforts
at territorial legislation? Is it neces-
sary that the Court should seek from
all the States in the Union for de-
| cisions on which to invalidate the
County Act? Is it not at liberty to
apply it's own convictions of right and
justice in this matter?
Certainly with the authority of the
supreme Court of the United States
above mentioned this Court would be
amply justified in refusing to declare
! the County Act invalid for the reason
last above mentioned.
On all of the grounds, therefore,
which have been presented and upon
each of them the defendants counsel
claim that the County Act is not made
invalid but stands as the law of the
Territory.
cATnCD ~ ANHJo NAlr