The Wolf Point herald. (Wolf Point, Mont.) 1913-1940, 1923-09-27

done which ought to have been done
by the rule of the constitution pre-
scribing the observance of a form OF
proceeding of the legislature, the
courts cannot go behind the enrolled
bill to ascertain whether such forms
were observed, and will rely upon its
attendant presumptions of regularity.
"In Railroad Co.. v. Governor, %
Mo. 535, Judge Scott thus ably states
the principle which controls: whilst
the power of the courts to declare a
law unconstitutional is admitted on
serve the constitution from violation,
yet such power is claimed and exer-
cised in relation to laws which. on
their face show that the constitu-
tutional limits have been transcend
ed. The reason for this principle
limits the claim of jurisdiction to
such cases. The constitution is de-
signed to limit the powers of the gov
ernment, and to confine each of
the departments to its appropriate
sphere. If the legislature exceeds it's
power in the enactment of a INV, the
courts, being sworn to support the
constitution, must judge that law by
the standard of the constitution, and
declare it's validity. But the ques-
ton whether a law on its face VIC
lates the constitution is very differ
ent from that growing out of the
I'll IL
CURED to be observed in its enact
ment. In the one ease a power is
exercised not delegated, or which is
prohibited, and the question of the
validity of the law is determined
from the language of it. In the
other, the law is not in its terms
contrary to the constitution; on it's
face it is regular, but resort is had
to something behind the law itself
in order to ascertain whether the
general assembly, in making the law,
was governed by the rules prescribed
for its action by the constitution.
This would seem like an inquisition
into the conduct of the members of
the general assembly, and it must be
seen at once that it is a very deli
cate power, the frequent exercise Of
which must lead 20 endless confusion
in the administration of the law"
Thus it is set forth as the law in
this State that the courts must not
go back of the enrolled bill, duly
signed by the presiding officers of
the two houses to find out whether
"the fact of signing shall be at nee
entered upon the journal" has been
complied with. Out it may be urged
that bills enacted into laws are to be
differentiated from proposed amend
ments to the constitution. The con-
stitution makes no distinction. "All
bills and joint resolutions passed by
the legislative assembly, are to be
passed and handled in one and the
manner
Is the doctrine as laid down in
State Z. Long still the law of the
Co. ". Northern Pacific Railway Co.,
3D. Mont. 268, the courts did go back
of the enrolled bill to determine if
it's final passage the vote had been
taken by ayes and noes, and the
of those voting had been en-
on the journal. This was done
because of the penalty in Sec. "a of
Art. V. mo bill shall become a
Otherwise the court said it
would have followed the law as laid
in State v. Long. but there is (
10 penalty for not spreading propos- !
d amendments to the constitution I
IN the journals. The law set forth
n the State v. Long was adopted and $
followed IN Barth ct al. ". Pock ct '
H., 81 Mont. 426; and in the Ease of t
State ex rel. Woodward ". Moulton l
It al, 81 Mont. Ala, the subject was S
ully and carefully considered, the Q
ormer decisions adopted, and in con- a
luding the decision stated the law y
0 be: n
at is therefore apparent that, n
5hen the constitutionality of an Act c
5 questioned on the ground of ir- c
egularity of legislative action, the c
My purpose for which the courts t
examine the journals of that o
ody is to determine whether the q
yes and noes were entered" o
Almost a quarter of a century ago, "
ur Supreme Court, in the case of ti
urfee ". Harper, % Mont. 345, p
ED an amendment to the constitu- n
on, providing for the calling in of a III
istrict judge when a supreme court a
ldge was disqualified, void because sc
lie proposed amendment had not OF
zen spread upon the journals of p'
9TH branches of the legislature in to
III before it was submitted to a vote W
the people. However that amend OF
ent was very different from the one p,t
wv under consideration. 1t was in tn
nded to affect, and only in a small Tn
amer, the work of the Supreme "a
ourt. 1t did not touch or affect in II
~ respect the rights or interest of or
e people. For that reason, the SUBJ
ct at that time was not exhaustive oh