Evening journal., 1912-07-20

ithu'Whi tnu duOEt ANlie NOW dC-
cept the journal entry doctrine and
Judges Boyce and Woolley the en-
rolled act doctrine. Chancellor Cur
tis' preference will give a majority
OF the court in favor of one doctrine
or the other. Judge Conrad did not
sit in the present case.
Justice PennewiIl's View.
Chief Justice Pennewill, after
reading the sixty-page principal opin-
ion, read his individual opinion sus-
tanning the validity Of the passage
Of the boulevard corporations law.
Upon the questions above consid-
cred and determined the Court is
unanimous. Upon the remaining
question, viz; The Constitutional pas
sage of the Act in question, the ma
iority Of the Court are of the opinion
that the act was Constitutionally
passed, but for different reasons.
Il am of the opinion that the Act
/ in question was Constitutionally
passed, and is a valid Act under the
/ journal entry doctrine Under such
doctrine every legal presumption is
to be made in favor of the validity
/ Of the Act If the journal entries
/ fail to show that the enrolled Act
was not the Act that was in fact pass
ed, or If the journal entries are sucn
as to make it doubtful which one OF
the two Acts was passed, then the
I presumption in favor of the enrolled
and published Act stands, and the
same must be held valid.
The Court in the Rash-Allen case
clearly recognized the fact that the
journal entry respecting the title of
the bill upon which the yea and nay
vote was taken might be a mistake.
and that the true and correct title
that Of the substitute bill .
''The question now is, whether in
the present case the journal entries
clearly and satisfactorily show that
It was the original and not the sub
sttute bill that was passed. If they
do not, or if they leave it doubtful
in the mind of the Court, which one
of the two was passed, the enrolled
and published Act stands unimpeach-
ed.
what do the Journal entries
show2 Generally speaking, they show
very different state OF facts from
the Rash-Allen case-because:
I'D There is but one entry in th'
House Journal which indicates tha
the original bill was passed, ant
that is the entry which states tha
the Secretary of the Senate informed
the House that the Senate had passed
the original bill and requested the
concurrence of the House therein
Every other entry shows that the
> substitute bill, that is the enrolled
and published Act, was constitution
ally passed.
There is but one entry in the Sen
ate Journal which indicates that gh'
original bill was passed by that body
and that is the entry respecting th'
2 yea and nay vote. OF course this il
) the most important and vital entr.
. respecting the constitutional Dassag
: of a bill, under the journal entr.
= doctrine. But. as We have seen, tn
5 Court may, notwithstanding this fact
be satisfied, after a careful eXami
, nation of all the journal entries o
{ both houses, that there was a cleri
= cal error made in the title. on tn
{ final passage of the BILL md that
= was another bill that was in tac
/ passed. And such clerical error
= more likely to be made If there is
! striking similarity in the titles of tn
two bills.
: "(2) The substitute bill was re
ported favorably by the Senate Com
: mittee and Immediately. or a. leas
before any other business interTeneC
4 ! bill was passed of practically tn
same title, but called the origina
/. Senate bill. The passage Ct the bill
] Fr.l rio f11t. faf
\ committee, and it is most natural
= believe that it was the reported bi
that was passed and hat the title {
= the original was entered by mistake
. There are no other entries in the Ser
I. ate Journal that are inconsister
!, with the passage of the substitut
bill; indeed every othe- entry in III
= Senate Journal, as we have said
Il every entry but one i'm the Hous
9 journal indicates tha- this was th
bill that was passed.
n "(3) The original and iubstitui
l. bill bore titles that were strikingl
similar, and such as were not III
u likely TO cause confusion and init
s. take The only difference in fact wa
IS in the parenthotical words cOntainc
d in the bracket, ani even those wore
= meant one and the same thing Thel
was no real difference in the titles.
90 In the Rash-Allen case thel
we're certainly Two separate and di
tinct bills. differing not only in lit
but also in subject matter II is NJ
at all certain that there was, at Il
time the yea and nay vote was take
in the Senate, more than one bill r
lating 10 the organization of Boul
ward Corporations, which was Il
real title of both the original an
substitute bill.
"(5) The entry indicating that
was the original bill that receiv,
the yea and nay vote is in the journ
OF one house only; and while Il
journal of the House states that u
Secretary Of the Senate informed q
House that the Senate had passed al
requested the concurrence of d
House in the original bill, the Hou
later informed the Senate that it hi
concurred in the substitute. The
- was but one bill sent by the Sena
> (Continued on Second Pagel