Evening journal., 1915-11-10
COURT-UPHObDS THE
BURRIS INDICTMENT
Holds Th,t Law Under
Which Prosecution is
Brought is Constitutional
GROWS OUT OF
BRIDGE REPAIRS

which Levy COurtman Samuel l..
Burris was indicted to be constitu-
tional. The motion to quash the in
dictment was dismissed.
The opinion of the court was de-
livered in the case in which Mr.. Bur-
ris is accused of violating the law by
causing work to be done on Wash
ington street bridge at a cost ex-
ceeding $500, without first advertis-
ing for bids, as required by law.
David J. Reinhardt, counsel for MIR.
Burris. had argued that the law un-
der which Mr.. Burris was indicted
was unconstitutonally passed by the
Legislature. he basing his arguments
on entries in the legislative journals.
The court, however, upheld the valid
ity of the law
The opinion in full follows;
The opinion follows
This is a motion to Quash the in |
dictment I'm the above case, which |
charges a violation of the provisions |
of Section 5, Chapter 273, Volume p,
Laws of Delaware. The Act was APP
proved March 81, 1903.
1T is contended by the defendant
that it does not affirmatively appear
from the entries in the journals OF
the Senate and House of Representa-
tives. that said act was passed in ac-
cordance with the provisions Of Sec
ton 10. Article 2. of the Constitution
of the state. in that on the final vote
in the House. the names of the mem
bers voting for and against the SAID
act were not entered on the journal.
"The constitutional provision re-
ferred to is in the following language;
section 10. Each House shall Keep
a journal of it's proceedings ana pun
lish the same Immediately after every
session. except such parts as may re-
ouire secrecy and the yeas and nays
of the members on any question shaii
at the desire of any member be en-
tered on the journal. No Dill or JOINT
resolution, except in relation 10 au'
iournment, shall pass either House
unless the final vote shall nave oeen
taken by the yeas and nays ana lhs
names of the members voting TOT anu
against the same shall be entered On
the journal, nor without the concur
renee of a majority of all the hlenl-
hers elected TO each House
1T is claimed by the defendant lnal
Ross V. Almond. l Boyce 44o' 10 ue
cisive Of the present case.
"fInp state GOUlthNo N+'t%N
ent case is distinguished iIonl 'ne
Ross v. Almond case ,,
"It is admitted that the bill no"
under consideration was constitution.
ellv nassed by the House, and sent I'
tnc SENATE for concurrence; that oec
tion 2 of the bill was amended III th'
senate constitutionally passed oy ina
hodv as amended, and returned 10 lh
House. ,,.oir,.
"The House Journal then cohtain
the following entry p,
e'Senate Amendment TO House bli
No 96 was concurred IN ana oruel g
tbat the Senate be informed thereoi
@1t annears. therefore, from IN
so,,rnois that the original bill wa
ros,ls,Iv and constitutionally passe
~, aach house. and that the amend
,,.o,,t offered I'm the Senate was adop'
ID in that body by yea and nay Vot'
rrho oniv objection urged against III
validity of the act is, that the loufn'
of The House does not show tnaI u,
vote on the amendment I'D thal pou
was by yeas and nays. -.
aThe facts as disclosed by tne Jou,
nails are very different from those
tbo Ross case. In that case the Jou
nails did not show that the maj No
on the bill was taken by yeas al
nays. h..,,or n
"Upon the question whether u
vote taken in the House on the auO @
tion of the Senate amendmeht W
or was not the final vote on the ~
within the meaning OF lhe oons1.'
ton the court expressed no opiil,o',, .., I.
"But assuming that the vote on !
a.a,,,ent was a final vote with
,ho meaning of the Constitution
ti,inl, The constitutionality of the
con he sustained on a broader groui
which. for obvious reasons was
mentioned in the argument
@vrben the Ross-AlmOnd case W
docided this state had not by a
iudicial decision. indicated Wnell
3ho iournal entry doctrine or the
roliod act doctrine should be rec,
nized While very many oi inc on
states had so indicated, no Deia"'
court had expressed any opiniou
~ subieot 1t was a new quest
-, this state Therefore the Juol
sitting in the Ross-Almond case
,,.onarinc their opinions, endeaVo
a. ascertain which OF the TWO q
t,;nce the majority of the States
unbeld The Judges who gave
majority opinion were convinced
q decided majority of our sls
States had upheld and eniorceu
journal entry doctrine, and thal
one reason. and very potent
for their decision. The JuuseS
eave the minority decision oeile
that the preponderance OF autho
was in favor Of the enrolled ao'
trine. Under such condiiiohs
two opinions we're prepared anu
based. of course, upon what lne
spective Judges believed to oe re'
and authority .bo Pos
"sjnce the decision in the hos
mond case the people OF the
have solemnly declared when vi
doctrines sound policy requires 81 =.
be followed. This was "one
constitutional amendment Which
vides i'm effect. that the enrolled
doctrine should be recognized III
Site. s.so,
ut is admitted by the deien
that If said amendment hao
adopted before the passage anu
nroval of the act in question nc
lection could be made TO the "
.utionality of the act.
eve do not mean TO say thal
amendment is retroactive IN the
thst il applies to acts OF the LEI
iature passed before its adoption
we do say that has, and 81
have. much influence with the col
aacidino xvbefher an act of the