Blaine County v. Heard

• Citation: 5 Idaho 6,45 P. 890
• Parties: BLAINE COUNTY v. HEARD
• Decision Date: 04 August 1896
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

45 P. 890

5 Idaho 6

BLAINE COUNTY v. HEARD

Supreme Court of Idaho

August 4, 1896

LEGISLATIVE JOURNALS-COURT WILL NOT EXAMINE FOR MOTIVE.-The court will not examine the journals of the legislature for the purpose of inquiring into the motive which actuated the legislature or any member of it, in enacting a law.

BLAINE AND LINCOLN COUNTIES-ORGANIZATION OF-CONSTITUTIONAL.-The act of the legislative assembly (Sess. Laws 1895, p. 32) organizing the counties of Blaine and Lincoln, declared valid and constitutional.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court, Blaine County.

Affirmed, with costs.

Hawley & Puckett, for Appellant.

The action was commenced by Blaine county against W. E. Heard for the recovery of books and papers, etc., belonging to the office of probate judge and ex-officio superintendent of public instruction of Logan county. An alternative writ of mandate was issued, and the defendant answered alleging his election to the office of probate judge of Logan county, his qualification, and that he still filled that office, and disputing the constitutionality of the law of the third session abolishing Logan county and creating Blaine and Lincoln counties. The first session of the state legislature passed an act on March 3, 1891, entitled: "An act to create and organize the counties of Alta and Lincoln and to apportion the debt of Logan county." On March 5, 1895 the legislature passed the act now in controversy abolishing the counties of Alturas and Logan and creating the county of Blaine, and at the same session March 11, 1895, in a separate act created the county of Lincoln out of territory comprising the said county of Blaine. The constitutionality of this law was questioned and proceedings had in this court to determine the same, and on June 3, 1891, in People v. George, 3 Idaho 72, 26 P. 983, this court decided the act unconstitutional. To uphold the acts in question would be to offer premiums for legislative trickery; to say to that branch of the state government that specious evasion and legislative circumlocution would, by proper manipulation of experienced lobyists, make it possible by indirect means to void sections of the constitution already interpreted by the courts. (People v. Marshall, 12 Ill. 391.) We contend that these acts, passed as they were--contemporaneously, and considered together by the legislature--must be considered together by the courts. (In re Hall, 38 Kan. 670, 17 P. 649.) A law which is a mere device to evade the constitutional provisions, prohibiting special legislation, cannot be upheld. (Devine v. Commins Cook Co., 84 Ill. 592; Commonwealth v. Patten, 88 Pa. St. 258; State v. Mitchell, 31 Ohio St. 607.)

Attorney General Parsons and Selden B. Kingsbury, for Respondent.

Constitutional questions affecting the right of a political subdivision of state to exist cannot be collaterally raised in opposition to the functional operations of such political subdivision, simply acting as such. (Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 6th ed., 309, 310.) The facts are stated in appellant's brief. The argument is the same word for word, and the authorities are the same that were presented in the case of Wright v. Kelly, passed upon by this court and reported in 4 Idaho 624, 43 P. 565.

HUSTON, J. Morgan, C. J., and Sullivan, J., concur.

OPINION

HUSTON, J.

In the cases of Wright v. Kelly, 4 Idaho 624, 43 P. 565 and Water Co. v. Stockslager, 4 Idaho 636, 43 P. 568, all of the questions raised in this case were fully argued and presented; and...