, 1957-04-06
DISTRICT COURTS RULING ON
LEGISLATIVE COMM. POWERS UPHELD
Continued from yesterday

! Much stress is laid by appellant upon various decisions
Of state courts interpreting the inVestigatory powers OF their
legislatures under their respective state constitutions. Deci-
sions by the Supreme Court of California are particularly, re
lied on. (See the Special Assembly Interim Committee '.
Southland, 80 P2d 932 1888; Swing Y. Riley, 50 F. I'd 938
and on rehearing, 10 Cal. I'd 513, 80 P I'd 33 1889. By means
for simply ~syllogism these decisions arrive at the conclusion
contended for by appellant here. The essential reasoning OF
the Supreme Court of California may be seen from the FOL
lowing quotation:
Under the various state constitutions, including that Of Calfor
MIA, the legislature, with the approval of the governor, has the
power to legislate-that is the power to make laws; each house
of the legislature has the power to initiate legislation; incidental
to and implied from this power to legislate, each house has the
implied and auxiliary power to appoint committees for the pur-
pose of aiding it in the proper performance Of this function thus
power, to appoint committees exists by implication, only because
of the existence of the express power to legislate; consequently,
when the power to legislate cases, then the power to investigate
for the purposesof aiding the legislature in exercising this power
ceases, r stated another way, when the main power of legislating
dies the incidental or implied power dies with it; that upon ad-
jounment sine die the legislative powers of both houses OF the
legislature cease; that thereafter the members OF the Legislature
nave no legislative powers unless a special session is called winch
can only be done at the call of the governor, and at which only
those matters set forth in the call may be considered; that during
a session each house can function separately as to the Introduction
Of bills, but it has no such power after adjournment; that each
regular session Of the legislature is composed OF a dlfferent Oooy
from its predecessor; that the only lawful purpose u a com1nnttee Is
to investigate the facts and to report back to the body creating IT.;
that the power conferred on a committee is a delegated power ana
the LEGISLATURE cannot lawfully delegate power that it itself does
lily oANoN
mot possess; that neither house has the power to appoint a commit
tee to function when the legislature itself could not act N TN
loremises" Che Special Assembly Interim Committee Y southard'
supra, SO P2d at 1861
This conclusion of the California court seems to us to
he an obvious non sequitur. It may be granted that a legis-
Ilature loses the present power to legislate upon the adjourn
ment of a session sine die. But its members still constitute
the legislature, whose legislative powers are merely DORM
ant and suspended between sessions, not finally terminated.
Just prior to an adjournment, d matter may come up need
ing to be Investigated by a legislative committee which could
not possibly complete the investigation and report prior to
adjournment. Granting that the function of such a commit
tee is limited to investigation as an aid to possible legislation,
is there any incongruity in setting such investigation attot,
with instructions to the committee to r p ort to
the legislature at its next regular. or special session, or even
Ito the succeeding legislature? Some state courts have per-
ceived no such in~congruity. See, for instance, State ex rel.
Robinson v. Fluent, 80 Washed 1874, 191 P.2d Q948) The
Washington court said Q91 P.2d at 2SG "The function OF
investigation during the interim is an inherent power in the
legislature. If there is not present in the constitution a re-
straint against the exercise of interim investigatory power
Ill