The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-03-27
amended the title to a house bin then

amended the title to a house Dill then
in the possession of the house
Again, there is not a word in the
conference report before the senate
which shows that the word equahza-
tton, as used in the so-called amend
ment, was in the title of house bill No.
90; nor is there word in the so-called
amendment indicating the title of what
act was sought to be amended. con-
clude, therefore, that the so-called
amendment to the title. shown on page
566 of the senate journal, is an abso-
lutte nullity, and cannot, by any kind
of presumption or judicial construc-
ton, be added to or construed as part
of the title of the bill passed by the
senate when it adopted the report of
the conference committee. 1t therefore
appears 'affirmatively, clearly, con-
clusively, and beyond all doubt that
the act was not passed regularly and
legally" and that house bill No. 55,
passed by the house and signed by the
governor, was never passed by the
senate, and that it is void.
The decision of the supreme court OF
Kansas in the case of State vs.
Andrews, 64 Kan, 4S2, referred to by
Senator Smith, is absolutely conclu-
Sive that the new tax law, in the man
ner it was passed, is void and of no
effect. In that case the court said
that:
IF, after the passage of the bill by
the senate, the record of the house
there amended, there would be
ground for saying that, because the
senate had not acted on such amend
ment, and lawfully given its assent
thereto, the concurrence of the two
houses to such amendment had not
been secured, for which reason it had
not been rendered efficient. Again, if
the record of the senate had averred
that the title and the act itself were
there amended, and that of the
house had asseverated that, while
that assembly had concurred in the
amendment to the body of the bill it
had refused to concur in the title as
changed, then it might be said that
the house journal fairly impeached
the bill as enrolled
l will concede that. if the journal
was silent, the bill, as published,
would be unimpea chable-bu it is
not silent. The facts are disclosed by
and affirmatively appear from the
journal There is nothing left in
doubt. "It affirmatively, clearly, and
beyond all doubt appears from the
journals of the two houses that the
bill which passed the house, and is
now on the statute books, never at
any time passed the senate. If legis-
latiVe journals can be distorted for
the purpose of upholding a bill that
was attempted to be passed, as house
bill No. So. then no person has any
antees.
The supreme court of Michigan, in
the case of Fillmore VS.. van Horn,
129 Mich, So. has decided that:
1.-The title of an act is required by
the constitution, and is as much a
part of the act as the body thereof; /;
and if it appears from the legislative
journals that an act was passed by
the respective houses under different
titles. it follows that the act is void"
In the case of Simpson VS.. Stock
Yards, lie Fed. Reptr, 799, the
legislative journals showed that a bill
for the regulation of stock yards was
passed by both houses by the senate
title. The clerk made a mistake, in
engrossing and enrolling the act, in
using the title by which the journals
showed it had been read first time
the federal court, said it was un-
doubleday a clerical error, but held
the act void Notwithstanding.
In the case of the State vs. r. R.
Co., reported in "a n. w. Reptr., 255,
the supreme court of Nebraska de-
essential part of it. This must be
true, since the constitution not only
requires that a bill shall have a title,
but that the same shall clearly ex-
press the subject of legislation. No
law passed without a title is valid"
And the court further held that, in
view of the fact that it was disclosed
by the legislative journals that the
bill had not passed both houses by
the same title, it was an absolute
nullity.
Many other like decisions may be
found. The place to settle these ques-
tions is in the courts, and not in the
newspapers, but the facts are before
the people, and doubtless, sooner or
later, they will be settled, and finally
settled by the courts.
B. P WAGGENER.
Atchison, Kan, March &C. 1908.