Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1915-10-12
BURRIS INDICTMENT
UNDER LEGAL FIRE
Counsel for Levy Courtman
Argue That Law Is
Unconstitutional
STATE DEFENDS
PASSAGE OF ACT

Chief Justice Pennewill. Judge Henry
c. Conrad and Judge T. Bayard Heisel
were on the bench in General Sessions
Court today when the case of the
State VS.. Samuel L. Burris was called.
This was the day set for argument on
the motion to quash the indictment,
charging Mr. Burris, as a member of
the Levy Court, under Section 5,
Volume %, Chapter 273. Page 574. with
violating the law by awarding con-
tracts for work on Washington street
bridge in amounts in excess of $500,
without advertising for bids for the
work
David J Reinhardt, who. with Philip
l.. Garrett, represented Burris, said
that the main point in his argument
was that the law governing the case
was not passed according to the man
datory law-that the journal of the
House must show the record of the
aye and nay vote on the bill. Mr..
Reinhardt said the act was known as
House bill No. SO. of the session of
1908. The House Journal shows that
the bill was passed and sent to the
Senate. The Senate journal showed
that the bill was amended and passed
by an aye and nay vote. Then the
bill was sent back to the House. The
House Journal shows that the House
concurred in the amendment and
passed the bill. He said the journal
does not show that the bill was
adopted by an aye and nay vote. He
argued that under the Constitution
the bill was void because the record
does not show it was passed by a ma
Iority OF the members of the House
and by an aye and nay vote. Mr..
Reinhardt quoted authorities from
other States regarding the same kind
OF a case in number of States. show
ing that an amended bill. to become a
law, must go through the same pro.
ceedings as an original bill
Mr. Reinhardt said that as this is a
+ criminal case il should receive the
strict consideration of the Constitu-
ton by the court
Attorney-General Wolcott replied in
his argument to similar cases in other
States. as quoted by Mr. Reinhardt
and contended that the questions were
not analogous. He argued that the
amended bill before the Legislature
could be concurred 10 without the aye
and nay vote. Failure he maintained
would not invalidate the act
Mr.. Wolcott read several cases re-
ported in other States regarding
amended bills and their passage anC
reiterated the contention that the bill
passed at Dover in 1903 was not void
Mr.. Wolcott criticized some of the
authorities cited by the defence ant
maintained that a North Carolina cas-
did not apply in the case before thu
New Castle County Court
Mr. Wolcott said the act had Qua
effect in dealing both with the con
duct Of the Levy Court and its com
missioners.
Mr.. Reinhardt replied that il stand
today that the House never passe'
the bill according to the constitution
provision. He said there could b.
no presumption as to the mateTalitl
Of the amendment He produced
brief filed in the Ross case a few
years ago in which the constitutional
! provision is set out He maintained
that the cases quoted by Mr. Wolcot
40 not apply to the one before thu
court
Mr.. Reinhardt commended that on
part of an act cannot be valid and the
other part invalid.
Mr. Reinhardt suggested and Mr.
Wolcott agreed that Mr.. Reinhard
submit q brief in order to presen