Year: 1859

| say member was Tn attendance on the | legislature when there was an entire cessa sion of business for three weeks-the mem. 1 bers gone to their homes and not able to re-assemble until the expiration of the time for which they were adjourned. The law is, they shall receive so much per day for each days attendance on the General As sembly. Second, 1t takes all the force from commucation recently published in the Old Line Democrat, from Col Duval, of Sebastian, relative to the action of the United States Congress on occasion of national and christian holidays and on the occasion of the death of a member. The decision clearly covering these questions the court says: "the practical construc- | tion of the law from the organization of the government to this time has been in favor of paying members for such temporary adioumnIents, and that they had no dis position to depart therefrom and further says it was absuld to say there was any analogy between the adjournment for their works and such temporary cessation of legislative duties. Then, one of the most important questions decided by the court is the question of jurisdiction. The presiding officer of deliberative body under the law of both Arkansas and Ala bama is a ministerial and political officer. The law itself determines that compensation shall be made to each member, and fixes the rule by which the amount of that com pensation shall be ascertained, and thus far the speaker is a ministerial officer. But the law does not determine how many days member may have attended-nor whether he has been detained by sickness, nor how many miles he may have travelled to and from the General Assembly; in these matters not definitely fixed by the law itself the speaker acts judicialy, for if a member should claim too many days at tendance, or too many miles travelled, the speaker might rightfully refuse to certify to such excess, and might reject and disal- low it. The speaker being an inferior judicial officer, the supreme court has, under the general powers given by the constitu- tion, appellate jurisdiction over him. Con- sequently, if he refuses to sign paroles due members as compensation for services; the supreme court would upon the proper showing being made, issue it's mandate compelling him to do so, which disposes of our second question in this connection, that is, was the per diem for the recess obtained in legal manner? The proper procedure would have been an application. to the su- preme court for mandamus against the speaker. Here the question would have been considered by tribunal authorized by law to pass upon it, with all the light which the law governing and the facts of the case could shed upon it. It would have been tried by tribunal having no pecuniary interest in the suit Instead of which the decision of the judicial officer of the house was reviewed by a tribunal having no authority by law for the act; and done in manner unknown to any code of written law, but which may receive the sanction ofthe "higher law" The expres- sion of opinion on the first resolution was certainly far enongh for tribunal without jurisdiction to go-without the last act evading the law After the election of Col. Duval, l suppose his act was bind ing until reviewed by the supreme court, If the question could then be raised before that tribunal. The question was asked me by Col. Hindman. why auditor Miller did not refuse to audit the accounts if they were illegal? l suppose then Mir. Miller could go behind the certificate of the speaker. l find however, the supreme court of Arkansas has ruled differently in case of Danley, auditor, vs Whitely, re- porter in fourteenth Arkansas reports, wherein it is held the legislature can in vest any officer of state with power to audit accounts, independent of the State arditor, and the acts of such special auditor are binding wihtin the scope of his author ity. The court there says "and with equal reason it would be made the imperative duty of the auditor, to issue his warrant for the pay and mileage of members aud contingent expenses of the two branches of the General Assembly, upon the certificate of such of their officers as might be ap- pointed for that purpose, |" which of course IS a sufficient answer to Col Hindman's question and perfect exculpation of NIr. Miller from any insinuation to the effect that he had certified accounts which he believed to be illegal.

 TO BE CONTINUED.