Evening journal., 1912-07-20
BOULEVARD DECISION
GRATIFYING TO STATE

and applied the doctrine of constpuc-.
ton known as the Journal Entry Doc
triue and the other two joined in
adopting and applying the other doc
trine of construction known as the
enrolled act doctrine, Il being ncces-
sary in that case to determine whether
an act had been valldly enacted
In this present case a majority or
the Court here finds that the act in
question was validly enacted. though
for divers and divergent reasons. TWO
members Of this court, Who were
members of the court in banc, adhere
TO the doctrine Of the minority OF tho
court In that case, and, applying the
enrolled act doctrine, find that the
act was passed according TO the Con-
stitution, while one other member OF
this court, who was also a member Of
the court I'm the case cited, while ad-
herring 10 the Journal Entry Doctrine
distinguishes the two cases and
reaches the same conclusion in favor
of the act In other words, in the pres
ent case the majority Of this court
reach the Same conclusion for differ
ent reasons.
AT this time 7 am not prepared
to adopt either Of these doctrines IN
preference to the other. The general
question was not argued by counsel
IN this case, and all of them referred
only 20 the case Of Rash vs. Allen
and the learned and exhaustive opln-
ions there delivered.
"A judgment Of the Court in Banc
is not binding upon the Supreme
Court, for an appeal from tho latter
20 the former Nor would the princi-
pies of the law adopted by tho for
mer be controlling in the latter Court
in the same or other cases. Great
respect should be given by the mem
bers Of the Supreme Court 10 the
opinions OF the judges constituting
the Court In Banc. especially when
the opinions in the latter Court agree.
Under the circumstances, do not
feel controlled by the views expressed
IN the case Of Rash VS.. Allen as to
the rules OF Constitutional lnterpreta-
tion The Constitutional question
there raised was Of great Importance.
involving, as it does the rules 90
be applied in determining whether
Acts of the General Assembly passed
since 1897 meet the requirements of
the Constitution as to the procedure
for the enactment of laws 10 Is
very important. too, that it should be
settled IN this, the Supreme Court Of
the State which OF the rules of con-
struetion should be adopted In Della
ware. and / regret very much that
am unable, at this time. TO do my
part by expressing my opinion on the
subject in this present case But in
view of the magnitude OF the ques-
tion, the extensive study required aud
the limited time available for con-
sideration Of this question. in addition
to the seevral other different Ques-
tions raised and learnedly discussed
IN this case, ! have not as yet been
able to reach conclusions satisfactory
to myself or TO give TO the matter the
deliberation which It's importance de-
serves
'lnasmuch as a majority of the
Court have reached conclusions which
will determine the judgment to be
rendered in this case. ! feel that the
rendering OF the decision should not
be delayed. But / reserve to my
self at least an opportunity TO file,
at or before the next regular term,
an opinion on this branch of the
case, inasmuch as the conclusions /
may reach whatever they may be, will
not affect the rights of the parties in
this present case.
For Judge Boyce and myself / am
constrained to say and it seems only
just to ourselves that we should say,
that we have had perplexing doubts
fully known to the members of the
Court as to the Constitutionality of
the Act of Assembly which we have
had under consideration IN several
respects. In concurring with the
opinion of the Court first read by the
Chief Justice. insofar as il is the
unanimous opinion of the Court we
have. as Il is our duty to do when
It can be done. not without consider
able hesitation, resolved our doubts in
favor of the validity OF the Act as
expressed In the opinion"