Evening journal., 1910-06-08

consequences OF JuulCldl dcllQn tdn nt
considered when the clear provisions
of the constitution point way to the
determination of the question
There is a particular ground upon
which IL is insisted that evidence out
side the journals may be resorted to.
II is this-that when the journals leave
it doubtful which one of the two bills
was constitutionally passed. then the
original bills. with the endorsements
thereon, and any other notes or
memoranda made by the clerks or
other officers, may be examined, not
for the purpose Of contradicting the
journals. but to explain them. In
other words. it is contended that such
evidence may be used to establish the
identity of the bill that was constitu-
tionally passed.
But such a position is not only un-
tenable, but unnecessary, under the
journal entry rule. II the journals
leave such a doubt as requires. or ad-
mits, of explanation. the presumption
in favor of the enrolled bill is not re-
butted, and it must be held valid
do the journals leave any such
doubt? If they clearly show that il
was the original Senate bill, and not
the substitute. upon which the yeas
and nays were taken and entered or
the journals, then any evidence out
side of. or aliunde. the journals, anC
outside of the record. which would
show that it was the substitute, and
not the original bill. would contradict
the journals.
This cannot be done under our view
of the law; is not permitted In any
of the States where the journal entry
doctrine prevails, and where the con.
stitutional requirements are like oul
own. Recognizing. as we do, sucl
doctrine, we hold that the journal.
must furnish the ultimate and con
elusive evidence Of a compliance by IN,
Legislature with the constitutional re-
quirements in the passage of an act
so far as said requirements are re-
quired 10 be entered upon and shown
by the journals. And this is a rea.
sonable, safe and certain rule. II will
create no confusion. and impose nc
hardship in ascertaining whether az
act was constitutionally passed or not
II the yeas and nays we're called and
a majority Of the members elected {,
each house voted in favor of the bill
the journals will show il, because tn,
yeas and nays are required to be en-
tered for that purpose, and are not re
quired to be entered anywhere else
And if they fail to show il. such fail
ure is conclusive proof that the bill wa.
not constitutionally passed
And now. without reference to thu
authorities. and without regard to an,
decisions cited. let us briefly consider
what was the manifest purpose Of tn.
provision in our constitution and wha
its language means.
1.-THE provision in the old constitution
was directory. Why should the maker
of the new constitution have mad,
such radical change as to make /
/ mandatory by providing that no bil
should be passed, unless the yeas an,
nays we're taken upon its final passag
and entered on the journal? Their
was no such provision in the old con
stitution The convention was com
| posed of intelligent men, many o
whom were able lawyers. They ha,
before them the provision in the thel
existing constitution. and must b
understood to have understood il
meaning. They knew that under tn
| old constitution the enrolled act wa
| conclusive. II they intended that !
| should continue 10 be conclusive, sucl
/ end would have been attained unde
/ tho old constitution. Why shoul
/ they have Incorporated the mandator,
words in the new? II must be pre-
/ sumed 10 have been carefully drawn T.
/ effectuate wcll-considered object an,
| that IT was intended thereby to max
( a change in the manner Of passing
/ laws.
/ 1T is reasonable to assume that tn
| trainers Of the present constitution be
! lieved that there was a good reason 10
such a change as they made. II wa
I evidently their purpose not only tina
/ thereafter no bill should become a Law
unless the yeas and nays were calle
4 and a majority Of the members vote
in its favor. but that the conclusiv
/ evidence of such fact should not b
the certificate of the speakers, or tn
| endorsements of and notes Of clerk
| or other officers, which were not super
/ vised by the body. but the journal II
self. which was kept or made unde
1 the supervision of the entire body II
/ that end they provided that the evi
! dence of a compliance with their man
date should be furnished by and pre-
/ scribed in the journal. Does II no
/ then seem almost absurd to say tha
/ such constitutional evidence, when
( is clear. may be overcome or contra
dicted by other evidence which is no
/ required by the constitution or law
to be kept for such purpose?
''It is fair to assume that il was in
tended by such mandatory provisio
to do away with the old English q
common law rule Of the envoidsbilit
of the enrolled act and that tn
journals should be the conclusive evi
dence Of the fact that a bill had o
had not been passed. Any other con
struction would make such mandator
clause a useless and senseless for
mality.
"The makers of the present constitu
tion meant that the organic law, an