Evening journal., 1912-06-13
Argues That legislative JOur-
nails Show 1t Was Rsgu-
larIy Passed
DISSIMILAR FROM
RASH-ALLEN CASE

L
DOVER. Del, June 13-Argument in
|lhe dupont Boulevard case, involving
|lhe constitutionality of the law, was
Resumed at the afternoon session here
/ esterday. Caleb 5. Layton, one of the
attorneys for the plaintiff, concluding
lhc reading of his brief shortly before
! o'clock
Robert II. Richards, for the defend
knts, then took mp his brief, defend
lng the Boulevard Corporations Law
Ind the validity of the Legislatures
procedure, giving the statement of
acts as to the origin of the bill. its
curse through the Legislature. etc,
md the constitutional questions in
'Olved.
Mr. Richards cited the Rash vs..
Nllen election case questions as dis
imilar from the one at issue. Judges
X loyce and WoOllcy questioned Mr..
richards as TO the difference in the
9 questions involved i'm the two cases.
s. Mr. Richards then proceeded with
3 he reading of his brief. He resumed
n reading this morning and was before
81 he court all morning.
81 Regarding the discrepancies in the
81 legislative journals as to the sub
u ill entered in the journals, on which
g Ienry Ridgely and Caleb s. Layton,
# #epresenting Jehu n. Clendauiel, lay
81 areat stress in their brief attacking
he law. Mr. Richards defined the "en-
Iolled act doctrine and the journal
# utry doctrine" as two great princi-
lies of law bearing on the subject.
We submit that no stronger argu-
No. ,frtrr he
& where in support of either doctrine
han is to be found in the opinions
{ the majority and the minority of the
ourt in the case of Rash VS.. Allen, 7"
s lr- Richards continued.
# This court may safely study only
hose two opinions and determine
herefrom which doctrine it will es-
ahlish as the law of this State.
Regardless however, of which doc
rine this court may adopt, We are
confident of the valid enactment and
existence of the statute in question,
or. even il this court should adopt
BE journal entry doctrine, we are
Honfident that recourse to the journals
vill not clearly and conclusively show
hat the said statute was not passed
n the manner prescribed by the consu-
& ution and that therefore the pre-
sumption of its valid enactment which
rises from the existence OF the en-
III oiled act properly authenticated and
3 luly published in the public laws is
not overthrown by the entries in the
journals.
Before proceeding to consider the
& actual journal entries relating TO the
Il tatute in question, we will state two
PROPOSITIONS of law which should be
kept in mind viz:
~ I'D The court will presume every
nactment of the Legislature to bC
constitutional and the burden is upor
lin who challenges its constitu.
W ionality to show it. This proposition
leeds no citation of authority.
"(2l The enrolled act doctrine il
+ self holds that the enrolled act duly
authenticated and published is prims
aci evidece Of its validity ant
'aises a presumption of its constitu
iOnal existence as a law. This pre-
sumption prevails and sustains tn,
statute unless the journal show ex
.plicitly, clearly and afiirmatively tha
S he statute was not passed in accord
hnce with the constitutional require
+ ments. If the journals leave an,
# doubt upon this subject, the presump
ion sustains the statute"
''Palpably, therefore, the designa
ion Senate Bill No 80" is a clerica
error. The preceding entries at thi,
part of the Senate journal show un
doubtedly that the designation shoulC
have been Senate Substitute for Sen
ate Bill No. 1872" that being the Bill
whicn was under consideration at tn,
time
1T therefore follows that this Who'll,
entry has reference to the Bill which
afterward became Chapter 1S9, Vol
ume %, of the Laws of Delaware, an,
that the yea and nay vote of the Sen
ate at this time was taken on tina
Bill
Is aside from the above. however
here is now in possession of the Stat
Librarian written record book 70
the Senate, session of 1911, simila
TO the one above mentioned for tn
blouse, in which book We submit i
& contained a part of the original Sen
ate Journal and in which book tn
entry with respect to the yea and ma
vote in the Senate on the Bill in cues
A lion dlscloses such vote to have bee
taken on a Bill designated "Senat
Substitute for Senate Bill No. 1872" an
entitled as the title is printed to Char
ter 1S9 Volume 26. of the Laws G
Delaware.
These original parts Of the journi
.< we respectfully submit, the Coul
E should notice"
Mr. Richards then traced in deta
aud in chronological order the pros
ress of the boulevard corporation
bill tan amendment to the genera
corporation law). He contended tina
:=7 he vari,us stages of the bills prog
ress as shown by journal entries {
1 Senate and House. strengthene
. the presumption of the validity of III
z{ boulevard statute. Continuing, NJ
<s Richards made this argument:
Proceeding backward, the ne
Journal eitry is found at page S5i
the House Journal. Here appears Il
first irregtlarity in the legislative hi
tory of this bill. The entry is as fc
lows:
Mr. Burton, Secretary of the
Senate, ieing admitted, informed
the Houe that the Senate has
passed aid requested the concur
renee of The House in the follow
ing Senab bill:
S. B. 10. 1S2, entitled:
An Actlto amend an Act en-