Carrizozo outlook. [volume] (Carrizozo, N.M.) 1910-1945, 1915-12-03

hfL nhn uut uNfu iNkNihFfy HAo'''f tHhN -
person might, IN fact, he committing n
crime when he thought he was acting d.
rectiy in accordance with the law.
The constitution Of Montana provides
that presiding officer Of each house shall.
In the presence Of the house, sign ali bills
Immediately after their titles have beei.
publicly read, and the fact Of sign.ng shall
he at once entered upon the journal Ia
n case decided Ivy the supreme court nl
that state the %journsl omitted TO show the
Tact that the bill was signed by the pre-
siding officer OF each house, although the
enrolled bill bore the signatures OF the
presiding officers. II wi be seen that
the constitutional provision was quite as
strong and mandatory as the one IN our
constitution.
The constitution " Tennessee provides
that no bill shall become o law until
n . . . shall have been signed by
the respective speakers In open session,
the fact Of such signing to he noted on
the journal j" The supreme couft OF that
state made eome comment upon the fact
that this clause did not use the manda-
tory word shall which was used In other
rur ions Of the same section but this dis
t~inction does not seem 70 be sound The
,Ouit held that the bill In question was
valid although the journal did not show
the TACT Of the signing
A decision Of the supreme court OF New
Jersey may perhaps be considered the
eading case IN the state authorities. IN
that tase Il Is shown that the &C nstitutiOn
II the state required each house To keep
"A journal Of lis proceedings and that the
yeas and nays on any question should at
he desire Of one-hfth Of those present, he
entered N the Journal, and also that the
VI AZ and nays oi the members vote on
the final passage of a bill should bt
altered on the journal. II IL said that
these are all the constitutional require
inents NJ Ia tbs journals. The court then
ayg that IL Is impossible not to incline
Ia the opinion that the trainers of she
constitution did not design 10 create re-
cords which were to be paramount 10 other
evidence with regard to the enactment
Ind contents of laws. aud that Mt the time
Of the formation Of the constitution. IN
ict enrolled in the office NJ the secretary
II state was conclusive rs to the existence
tnd provi-i M Of the laws which II nm
bodied, in this regafd following the gen
raj English rule as To act OF Parliament
The court goes on 10 consider, among
,ther things. the unreliable character u
legislative journals. aud to show that n
hey ARE ~ be restored 10 at all their ct
feet would he contfOllable. as the idea
that upon this subject the courts need
listen To parnl prncf Is totally inadmissible
The opinion IN the case II quite lengthy
hut IL well worth reading In It's entirety
nd IL highly instructive as to the princi
pies which should he applicable to any
such question as Is involved In h present
discussion. The following quotation
ought, however, 10 be Of some value nj
this place:
this quotation il also omitted }
Pangborn v Young. ~ v j l. 20, 81
10 80. 4O.4l. See also Cable Co v st
torncy general. 40 J Eq. 270, 27Yi,
A comparatively recent decision o. Cali
fornia Is Of special interest as It reviews
%eailier decisions In the state. the first ri
which, Fowler Y. Pierce, 2 Cal 1875, held
that the court could GO behind the en-
rolled bill and inquire whether II was
passed or approved in accordance will
the constitution, while the later cnac'
overruled that decision and held thai
neither the journal nor the bill originally
introduced nor parol evidence could III
received as against the properly enrolled
and authenticated bill deposited with IN,
secretary Of state.
County Of YoIo Y Colgpn, l42Cal 265
275.
Indiana is one of the states which sup
p~orts.our conclusion. In a case In 1866
the court said that the questions necessar!
TO he considered we're:
al. Must the courts " this state TAXI
Judicial knowledge Of what Is and wha
IL not the public statutory law o
the state7 ?. When n statute il auth
enticated by the signatures " the pre-
siding officers Of the two houses, W N III
courts search further, 20 ascertain wheth
er such facts existed ~ gave constitution
ai warrant 10 those officers Ia thus auth
e%nticate the act a. having received legis
lative sanction in such manner as 10 Civ
Il the force NJ law"
As TO the first Of these questions IN
court held, Of cour re that il must tax
judicial knowledge Of what IA the law. NJ
even the private citizen must know il a
his peril. The particular objection whlcI
was being urged in that case WAS that IN
bill was passed by less than "A quorum q
the house Of representatives, and tina
this fact was shown by the journals, 1
connection with other evidence which wi
presented. The opinion points Out tha