Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State

Citation1911 OK 61,113 P. 921,28 Okla. 94
Decision Date24 January 1911
Docket NumberCase Number: 1989
PartiesATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. STATE.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1. STATUTES--Legislative Records--Signed Bill Conclusive Evidence. When an enrolled bill has been signed by the Speaker of the House and by the President of the Senate, respectively, in the presence of those bodies immediately after the bill has been read publicly at length, and the same has been approved by the Governor and deposited in the office of the Secretary of State, it is not competent to show from the journals of the House that the act so authenticated, approved and deposited did not pass in the form in which it was signed by the presiding officers and approved by the Governor.

2. TAXATION--Constitutional Law--Power of Legislature. That portion of section 2, article 7, ch. 38 (Sess. Laws 1909), being part of an act entitled "An act for raising and collecting revenues," approved March 10. 1909, which levies annually one-fourth of one mill ad valorem tax for common-school purposes, does not violate section 20, article 10 of the Constitution.

Error from District Court, Logan County; A. H. Huston, Judge.

Action by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company against the State. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Cottingham & Bledsoe, for plaintiff in error.

Charles West, Atty. Gen., and C. J. Davenport, for defendant in error.

HAYES, J.

¶1 For convenience, plaintiff in error will be referred to as "the railway company" and defendant in error as "the state."

¶2 This cause arose in the district court of Logan county upon a submitted controversy in lieu of an action. The railway company seeks to prevent the state from collecting a tax levied against its property for common-school purposes under a provision of an act of the Legislature approved March 10, 1909 (Sess. Laws 1909, p. 600). Section 2, article 7 of that act provides in part as follows:

"There is hereby levied annually an ad valorem tax upon all property in this state which may be subject to taxation upon such basis, a tax sufficient, in addition to the income from all other sources, to pay the expenses of the state government for each fiscal year ending on the thirtieth day of June, * * * including one-fourth of one mill for common-school purposes to be levied, collected and distributed as other school money. * * *" (Italics are ours.)

¶3 The judgment of the trial court was in favor of the state. The facts agreed upon in the submitted controversy present for determination the following three questions: First. Did the act as passed by the Legislature include the foregoing italicized provision? Second. Will the courts look beyond the enrolled bill signed by the presiding officers of the two houses of the Legislature and approved by the Governor, to determine whether such bill was in fact passed by the Legislature? Third. Does said provision of the act violate section 20 of article 10 of the Constitution? The first and second of these questions will be considered together.

¶4 The railway company contends that said act (for convenience hereinafter referred to as "House Bill No. 168"), when adopted by the Legislature, did not contain the provision authorizing the levy for common-school purposes; that that provision never received the sanction of the members of the Legislature; and that such facts are disclosed by the journals of the House and Senate. Whether a court can look to the journals of either branch of the Legislature, or of both, to impeach the enrolled bill in determining whether or not it was passed in conformity with constitutional provisions, and in determining whether all the provisions contained in the enrolled bill signed by the presiding officers of the two branches of the Legislature and approved by the Governor were contained in the bill as adopted by the Legislature, is a question upon which the decided cases from the various states of the Union are in hopeless conflict; and there are many cases supporting, respectively, the affirmative and negative of the proposition. Among those cases holding that the journal may be looked to for the purpose of impeaching the enrolled bill are the following: Jones v. Hutchinson, 43 Ala. 721; Moody v. State, 48 Ala. 115; Burr & Co. v. Ross & Leitch, 19 Ark. 250; Vinsant v. Knox, 27 Ark. 266; Webster v. City of Little Rock, 44 Ark. 536; State v. Brown, 20 Fla. 407; State ex rel. Boyd et al. v. Deal, 24 Fla. 293, 4 So. 899; Butler v. State, 89 Ga. 821, 15 S.E. 763; Spangler v. Jacoby, 14 Ill. 297; People ex rel. Barnes v. Starne, 35 Ill. 121; Cohn v. Kingsley (Idaho) 49 P. 985; Koehler & Lange v. Hill, 60 Iowa 543, 14 N.W. 738; State v. Andrews, 64 Kan. 474, 67 P. 870; State ex rel. v. Robertson, 41 Kan. 200, 21 P. 382; State ex rel. v. Francis, 26 Kan. 724; Haynes v. Heller, 12 Kan. 381; Mynning v. Detroit, Lansing & Northern R. R. Co., 59 Mich. 257, 26 N.W. 514; People v. McElroy, 72 Mich. 446, 40 N.W. 750; Board of Supervisors v. Helman, 2 Minn. 281; State v. City of Hastings, 24 Minn. 78; Miesen v. Canfield, 64 Minn. 513, 67 N.W. 632; Hull v. Miller, 4 Neb. 503; State v. Huff, 18 Neb. 236, 25 N.W. 77; State ex rel. Casper v. Moore, 37 Neb. 13, 55 N.W. 299; State ex rel. Wahoo Water Works Co. v. City Wahoo et al., 62 Neb. 40, 86 N.W. 923; Opinion of Justices, 35 N.H. 579; Opinion of Justices, 52 N.H. 622; State, etc., v. Moffitt, 5 Ohio 358; Fordyce v. Godman, 20 Ohio St. 1; Mumford v. Sewall, 11 Ore. 67, 4 P. 585; State v. Rogers, 22 Ore. 348, 30 P. 74; State v. McConnell, 3 Lea, 332; Gaines v. Horrigan, 4 Lea, 608; Brewer v. Huntingdon, 86 Tenn. 732, 9 S.W. 166; Ritchie v. Richards et al., 14 Utah 345, 47 P. 670; Wise v. Bigger et al., 79 Va. 269; Meracle v. Down, 64 Wis. 323, 25 N.W. 412; Brown v. Nash, 1 Wyo. 85; Osburn et al. v. Staley, 5 W. Va. 85.

¶5 At common law the rule prevailed that the enrolled bill is conclusive and may not be impeached by resort to the legislative journal (Rex v. Arundel, 80 Eng. Rep. [Full Reprint] 258; Edinburgh Ry. Co. v. Wauchope, 8 Cl. & F. 710; The Lon. & Can. L. & A. Co. v. R. M. of Morris, 7 Manitoba 128) ; and the same rule is adopted in the following states cases: Grays v. Alsap, 1 Ariz. 274; Sherman v. Story, 30 Cal. 253; People v. Burt, 43 Cal. 560; Eld v. Garham, 20 Conn. 8; State et al. v. Savings Bank, 64 A. 5; Territory v. O'Connor, 5 Dak. 397, 41 N.W. 746; State ex rel. McVey v. Burris (Del.) 49 A. 930; Evans v. Browne, 30 Ind. 514; State v. Boice, 140 Ind. 506; Lewis v. State, 148 Ind. 346, 47 N.E. 675; Lafferty v. Huffman, 99 Ky. 80, 35 S.W. 123; Owensboro & Nashville Ry. Co. v. Barclay's Adm'r, 102 Ky. 16, 43 S.W. 177; Norman v. Kentucky Board of Managers, 93 Ky. 537, 20 S.W. 901; Louisiana State Lottery Co. v. Bichoux, 23 La. Ann. 743; Weeks v. Smith et al., 81 Me. 538, 18 A. 325; Green v. Weller et al., 32 Miss. 650; Ex parte Wren, 63 Miss. 512; Pacific R. R. v. Governor, 23 Mo. 353; State v. Swift, 10 Nev. 176; State v. Howell, 26 Nev. 93, 64 P. 466; Pangborn et al. v. Young, 32 N.J.L. 29; Ewing v. Trenton, 57 N.J.L. 318, 31 A. 223; People v. Devlin, 33 N.Y. 269; People v. Marlborough Highway Comm., 54 N.Y. 276; Brodnax et al. v. Groom et al., 64 N.C. 244; Power v. Kitching, 86 N.W. 737; Speer v. Plank Road Co., 22 Pa. 376; State ex rel, Hoover v. Chester, 39 S.C. 307, 17 S.E. 752; Narregang v. Brown County et al., 14 S.D. 357, 85 N.W. 602; State ex rel. Lavin et al. v. Bacon et al., 14 S.D. 394, 85 N.W. 605; Central Ry. Co. v. Hearne, 32 Tex. 546; Williams v. Taylor, 83 Tex. 667, 19 S.W. 156; In Re Welman, 20 Vt. 653; State ex rel. Reed v. Jones, 6 Wash. 452, 34 P. 201.

¶6 We have not cited above all the cases that support either of the rules, but have attempted to give only a sufficient number to indicate the extent to which both rules are supported by respectable authority. It has been asserted by some of the text writers, as well as by some courts in the decided cases, that the weight of authority, numerically speaking, supports the rule that where the journal contains matters affirmatively impeaching the enrolled bill, it must prevail. Black on Interpretation of Laws, p. 225. A similar declaration is found in the first edition of Sutherland on Statutory Construction. However correct these statements may have been at the time they were written, it must now be doubted whether they speak correctly the conclusion of the authorities upon this question at this time, and in the last edition of Sutherland on Statutory Construction, at page 72, it is said:

"It is no longer true that 'in a large majority of the states' the courts have held that the enrolled act may be impeached by a resort to the journals. A comparison will show that the courts are now about equally divided on the question. The current of judicial decision in the last ten years has been strongly against the right of the courts to go back of the enrolled act. Undoubtedly the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Field v. Clark has had much to do in creating and augmenting this current, but it may also be due to the greater simplicity, certainty and reasonableness of the doctrine, which holds the enrolled act to be conclusive. Many courts and judges, while feeling compelled to follow former decisions holding that the enrolled act may be impeached by the journals, have done so reluctantly and have expressed doubts as to the validity of the doctrine, and in many cases, as will appear in the following section, have qualified and restricted it in important particulars."

¶7 As stated in the foregoing excerpt, the courts of some of the states that have felt the rule too long established to be overturned have, nevertheless, been contsrained to question its wisdom. After the rule had been established in Burr v. Ross, supra, and followed in several subsequent cases, the justices, in delivering the opinion in Webster v. City of Little Rock, said:

"The legislative department of the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • In re Gross Prod. Tax of Wolverine Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 12 octobre 1915
  • Idaho Gold Dredging Company v. Balderston
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 25 janvier 1938
    ... ... JOHN L. BALDERSTON, Commissioner of Law Enforcement of the State of Idaho, and J. W. TAYLOR, Attorney General of the State of Idaho, Respondents. UNITED MERCURY MINES COMPANY, a Corporation, et al., Appellants, ... corporations ... " ... ( ... Fenton v. Board of County Commrs., 20 Idaho 392, ... 399, 119 P. 41; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v ... State, 28 Okla. 94, 113 P. 921, 40 L. R. A., N. S., 1; ... Thurston v. Caldwell, 40 Okla. 206, 137 P. 683; ... ...
  • Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 24 janvier 1911
  • Nation v. Chism
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 8 décembre 1931
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT