Evening journal., 1912-07-20

lpohltlOne Ol INV titl ohtuiu nr nNf'
lin mind:
Il The Court will presume every
enactment OF the Legislature TO be
constitutional, and the burden is
upon him who challenges It's con-
'stitutionality to show It.
% The Journal entry doctrine
holds that the enrolled act duly au-
lthenticated and published. is prima
facie evidence OF IFS validity and
RAISES a strong presumption of its
Constitutional passage. This pre-
sumption prevails. aud the statute
must be sustained unless the journals
lshow clearly and satisfactorily that
the statute was not constitutionally
passed II the journals leave any
doubt upon this subject the presump-
iion remains and the statute Is tus-
tained
After considering the journals Of
the two Houses I think the presump-
tion OF the constitutionanty Of the
Act in question is not rebutted or
overthrown; because the journal en-
tries, taken as whole. do not con-
Vince me that any constitutional pre-
requisite was not comylied with In the
passage Of the Act. On the contrary
they lead me 70 believe tnat the two
lentries mentioning the original bill
were clerical mistakes, the subject
matter being the substitute bill, and
lruch bill being clearly meant or in
tended.
From the foregoing statement Of
facts showing the legislative history
rof the bill under consideration II Is
manifest that the present case Is
iclearly distinguishable from the
Rash-Allen case in which the journal
lentry doctrince was recognized IN
der such doctrine ] hold the Act now
i'm question to have been Constitu-
itionally passed"
Judge Rice COncurs.
Judge Rice in his individual opinion
las to the passage OF the law said
"Ono question IN this case for the
determination Of the court, is whoth-
,er the provisions Of Section 10 Of Ar
ticle 2, Of the Constitution OF the
Estate OF Delaware have been complied
with by the General Assembly in the
passage OF the Boulevard Act? p
"This question involves the consid-
ieration of two doctrines. known as the
.'Journal Entry oDctrine and the En-
ROLLED Act Doctrine In compare
,tivoly recent case in this State, the
1--we law Judges, sitting at that time,
and constituting a court IN banc passed
upon the merits OF the two doctrines,
latter a thorough and exhaustive argu-
'ment by counsel in that case
THE majority of the court accepted
and applied as the law IN this state
the journal Entry Doctrine and the
minority dissented and expressed
their opinion In favor Of the Enrolled
Doctrine
In the present case IL appears to
me that it is not necessary for me to
lpass upon the merits Of the respective
doctrines for the following reasons:
lCl That the law pertaining to the
two doctrines as applicable In this
.Stato was not argued to any extent by
counsel on either side; (2) that the
present case is distinguishable from
the former case ] therefore concur in
the whole opinion as read by the chief
Justice"
Judges WOolIey aud
BOyce Set Forth Views.
, Judge Woolley read the opinion OF
Judge Boyce and himself, finding that
the bill had been validly enacted.
they applying the enrolled act doc
trine.' and not accepting the journal
ENTRY doctrine. Judge Woolley said:
In the Rash-Allen case and in this
case, Judge Boyce and I have concur
red In our opinion of the law respect
ing the valid enactment Of statutes
under our constitutional provision,
and al his request. / will briefly en-
body his views with mine
Sitting as judges Of the Supreme
Court in the consideration Of this case
we do not here feel bound by the
doctrine announced by the majority Of
the court in banc in the Rash-Allen
case, but on the contrary We consider
that in this case we may express our
views and state our positions relative
N the law by which the valid enact
ment Of statutes IN this state is 10 he
tested aud determined freely and
without the restraint OF precedent.
In order therefore TO mako cer-
tain our positions upon this question.
We state that we cannot subscribe to
the Journal entry doctrine announced
BY the majority of the court In the
Rash-Allen. case, nor 20 that doctrine
as applied 10 this case, nor can We
distinguish this case from the Rash
Allen case, for to our minds. the Jour
nal which Is relied upon In this case as
the constitutional record OF the Legis-
letureis acts, diecloses precisely the
same journal defect that was held
- justify the decision IN the Rash
Allen case
Giving however. 10 our constitu-
sional provision. the Interpretation
made by the minority of the court be.
low in the case Of Rash VS.. Allen and
adhering 10 the enrolled act doctrine,
as stated by the opinion Of the min
ority OF the court IN that case, We hold
that by the force Of that doctrine and
adhering 70 the principles Il embodies
the statute put in question in this
case was validly and constitutionaliy
enacted.
Chancellor's Attitude.
Chancellor Curtis also read a state
ment Of his attitude setting forth tha'
he Is still open-minded as to III,
Journal entry and enrolled bill doc
trine and that he will fiie his opiniol
accepting one or the other doctrines
prior to the next regular session @
TIE Srnreme Court. Chancellor Cur
tie IN his oninion, said
The petitioner urges as one groun,
aeeinst the right 10 take his land III
ieiiHrc Of the legislature 20 compl,
with the constitutional requirement
for the validity OF the passage Of n
Act under which the corpora