El Nuevo mexicano., 1917-11-08
Legislative Journal Often
Prepared BY Incompetent
Men, Says Supreme Court
They Also Are Frequently Insensible to Response
bilities, Judicial District Opinion Declares; En-
rolled and Engrossed Resolution Held to Be
Final Proof Of Validity

Certainty mad safety require tina
the Authorization Of a proposed
amendment passed in the Legislature
be left to the carefully enrolled ant
engrossed resolution and not to Tho
journal prepared often, as 1t is re
cognized to be, by incompetent men
and by men frequently insensible t.
their responsibilities"
This is what the state supreme
court says, In substance, in the de
cision handed down Saturday after
noon unfolding the validity of the
resolution proposing an amendment
to the constitution creating the ninth
jcdicia district out of the counties
of Quay. Curry, Roosevelt AMI Dc
Baca. The opinion is by Mr.. Justice
Parker. Its syllabus was printed in
the New Mexican Saturday afternoon.
The case is number 2130, and its
title is &c. C. Smith ct al appellants,
VS.. Antonio Lucero, %appellees," com
ing up on appeal from the district
court Of Santa Fe county. Attorney
F. w. Clancy appeared for the ap-
pellants and Attorneys c. A. Spiess,
E. r. Wright and s. B. Davis, Jr., for
the appellees.
The opinion begins with a history
of the case, stating 'this is an &C.
ton brought to obtain an injunction
against the secretary of state to re-
strain him from publishing in the
newspapers, in accordance with the
requirements of Article 10 Of the
state constitution, as a proposed
amendment to Secs. IL and s of Ar
ticle 6 Of the constitution, the mat
ter contained in House Joint Resolu-
ton No. 10, which was introduced in
the Third legislature. The ground
for such an injunction is that the
said resolution was not adopted, as
required by the constitution, by a ma
jority Of all the members elected to
the state senate"
Discussing the recording of propos-
ed constitutional amendments, the
opinion then deals with the danger
such amendments run If their fate is
left to the journal.
Journal Easily Unreliable
at is to be observed" says the
court, "that proposed constitutional
amendments r to be entered in the
Journal, together with the yea and
nay vote thereon. This provision is
special to such matters and there is
no such requirements in regard to
any other legislative action. All bills
and resolutions passed by the legisla-
ture are to be enrolled and %engrossed.
publicly read and signed in open SEES
sion and reading and signing thereof
noted on the journal. This provision
is general and refers to all action
taken by the legislature. The two ar.
ticles are not so separate in scope
and subject matter as to prevent the
application to one Of the general pro-
visions in another. In n particular,
at least, they are connected in terms,
In that a proposed amendment, pro-
vided for in n article lis required to
be entered in the journal, the keeping
Of which is provided for in the other
article. Can 1t be said that the pro-
posed constitutional amendment is to
be left to it's fate in the journal, pre-
pared, often, as it is recognized to be,
by incompetent men, and by men fire.
quently insensible to their RESPONSE
bilities, receiving no sanction Of the
legislative body except the perfume
tory reading and approval of the
journal, which is often dispensed
with, and to a journal which is often
not actually written up until the leg
islative body has adjourned, while
the ordinary bill or resolution is to
be enrolled and engrossed, publicly
read and signed by the presiding Of
ficers in open session? To hold with
the contention Of appellants is to an
the inquiry in the affirmative.
In that event, the only way a pro-.
posed constitutional amendment is to
find its way into the office Of the
secretary of state is at the close OF
The session of the legislature and as
part of the journal. In this way the
legislature is left at the mercy of a
clerk, who, it is sufficient to say, is
lot a member thereof mad has none
Of the duties and responsibilities of
such membership. Every consideration
II certainty and safety requires the
court to hold that the authorization
IT the proposed amendment be not
eft to the journal, but to the enrolled
Ind e~ngrossed resolution proposing
he same, If it al be done without !
loing violence to the provisions OF :
he constitution or the rules Of con \
truction." /,
journal VS.. Resolution q
Later the court discusses the testi- I
nonial preference which should be
iven to two apparently opposing I
roofs, saying: :
Having arrived at this conclusion,
We are still confronted with the ques-
lon as to the testimonial preference "
7hich is to be given to two apparent b
Y opposing proofs. On the n hand, c,