Dumas v. Bryan

• Decision Date: 01 June 1922
• Citation: 35 Idaho 557,207 P. 720
• Parties: CHARLES O. DUMAS, Appellant, v. E. A. BRYAN, STANLEY EASTON, I. E. ROCKWELL, ETHEL E. REDFIELD, EVAN EVANS, J. G. H. GRAVELEY and J. A. LIPPINCOTT, Being the Board of Education of the State of Idaho, Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

207 P. 720

35 Idaho 557

CHARLES O. DUMAS, Appellant, v. E. A. BRYAN, STANLEY EASTON, I. E. ROCKWELL, ETHEL E. REDFIELD, EVAN EVANS, J. G. H. GRAVELEY and J. A. LIPPINCOTT, Being the Board of Education of the State of Idaho, Respondents

Supreme Court of Idaho

June 1, 1922

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-HOUSE AND SENATE JOURNALS, WHEN CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE BILL HAS LEGALLY PASSED-REVENUE BILLS, WHAT ARE-MUST ORIGINATE IN HOUSE.

1. Where the journals of the senate and house of representatives show respectively that a bill was regularly passed by the Senate, transmitted to the House, where it received a constitutional majority in that body, was thereafter returned to the Senate unchanged, was there enrolled, signed by the president of the Senate, again transmitted to the House and signed by the speaker, and thereafter duly approved by the Governor, it is conclusive that the constitutional requirements with reference to the passage of the bill were complied with.

2. Where an act originates in the Senate which, among other things, assesses upon all taxable property in the state for a given period a tax of one-eighth mill on the dollar, the proceeds of such levy being thereby appropriated for the purpose of erecting buildings for one of the state's normal schools, which the bill proposes to move to a new location, it is a bill for raising revenue, and must originate in the House of Representatives, and if it does not so originate, the method of its enactment is in contravention of art. 3, sec. 14 of the constitution, and such act is void.

3. Where an act directs the state board of education to erect suitable buildings for one of its state normal schools, in time for the commencement of the school year of 1922, out of a tax levy of one-eighth mill, which the bill assesses upon all of the taxable property of the state, and such tax levy is void because of being a revenue measure not having originated in the House of Representatives, the entire bill falls, there being no other provision for the construction of the necessary buildings.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District for Cassia County. Hon. T. Bailey Lee, Judge.

Action to obtain an injunction against defendants. From judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to grant injunction.

Judgment of the lower court reversed, with instructions. No costs awarded.

Walters Hodgin & Bailey and R. P. Parry for Appellant.

The method of passing chap. 110, Sess. Laws 1921, is contrary to and violates sec. 15, art. 3, Idaho constitution. (Cohn v. Kingsley, 5 Idaho 416, 49 P. 985, 38 L. R. A. 74; In re Drainage District No. 1, 26 Idaho 311, 143 P. 299, L. R. A. 1915A, 1210; Gardner v. Collector, 6 Wall. 499, at 511, 18 L.Ed. 890; Milwaukee v. Isenring, 109 Wis. 9, 85 N.W. 131, 53 L. R. A. 635; Loftin v. Watson, 32 Ark. 414; Haney v. State, 34 Ark. 263; Burks v. Jefferson County, 40 Ark. 200; State v. Savings Bank of New London, 79 Conn. 141, 64 A. 5; Berry v. Baltimore & D. P. R. Co., 41 Md. 446, 20 Am. Rep. 69; Dunn v. Brager, 116 Md. 242, 81 A. 516; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 544, 134 S.W. 530; New Hanover County Commrs. v. DeRosset, 129 N.C. 275, 40 S.E. 43; Bowen v. Missouri P. Ry. Co., 118 Mo. 541, 24 S.W. 436; Brannock v. St. Louis M. v. S.E. R. R. Co., 200 Mo. 561, 118 Am. St. 695, 98 S.W. 604; Rogers v. State, 72 Ark. 565, 82 S.W. 169.)

The act in question is in violation of sec. 3, art. 14 of the constitution. (1 Story's Constitution, sec. 880; The Nashville, 4 Biss. 188, 17 F. Cas. 1176 (No. 10,023); United States v. Mayo, 26 F. Cas. 1230 (No. 15,754); Perry County v. Selma etc. Ry. Co., 58 Ala. 546; Harper v. Commissioners, 23 Ga. 566; Anderson v. Ritterbusch, 22 Okla. 761, 98 P. 1002.)

A bill, one of whose main provisions is to raise revenue, must originate in the House of Representatives. (In re Lee (Okl.), 168 P. 53; Mumford v. Sewall, 11 Ore. 67, 50 Am. Rep. 462, 4 P. 585; Lang v. Commonwealth, 190 Ky. 29, 226 S.W. 379; Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196, 17 S.Ct. 766, 42 L.Ed. 134; State v. Bernheim, 19 Mont. 512, 49 P. 441; Re Ambler, 11 Okla. Cr. 449, 148 P. 1061; Geer v. Board of Commissioners, 97 F. 435, 38 C. C. A. 250; Hubbard v. Lowe, 226 F. 135.)

Morris & Griswold, Roy L. Black, Attorney General, and Dean Driscoll, Assistant, for Respondents.

The journals of the House and Senate are conclusive and exclusive evidence of what was done by the legislature in the passage of a bill. (Burkhart v. Reed, 2 Idaho 503, 22 P. 1; Blaine County v. Heard, 5 Idaho 6, 45 P. 890; Cohn v. Kingsley, 5 Idaho 416, 417, 49 P. 985, 38 L. R. A. 74; Farr v. Western etc. Sav. Co., 15 Idaho 741-751, 99 P. 1049, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 707; Swain v. Fritchman, 21 Idaho 783, 125 P. 319; In re Drainage District No. 1, 26 Idaho 311, 143 P. 299, L. R. A. 1915A, 1210; State v. Eagleson, 32 Idaho 280, 181 P. 935.)

The provisions of this act for raising revenue are merely incidental to the main object or purpose of the act which is the removal of the Normal from Albion to Burley. As such, they are no violation of the constitutional provision. (1 Story, 5th ed., sec. 880; Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. School District, 63 Colo. 159, 165 P. 260; Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196, 17 S.Ct. 766, 42 L.Ed. 134; Millard v. Roberts, 202 U.S. 429, 26 S.Ct. 674, 50 L.Ed. 1090; Twin Falls Canal Co. v. Foote, 192 F. 583; Fletcher v. Oliver, 25 Ark. 289; Evers v. Hudson, 36 Mont. 135, 92 P. 462, 35 L. R. A. 188, note.)

LEE, J. Rice, C. J., and Budge and Dunn, JJ., concur. McCarthy, J., dissents.

OPINION

LEE, J.

The Albion State Normal School was established at Albion, Cassia county, in 1893 (L. 1893, pp. 179--182), and has since been maintained and operated at that place. By chapter 110, L. 1921, p. 256, the sixteenth session passed Senate Bill No. 298, which authorizes and directs the state board of education to remove this school to the city of Burley, in the same county. Acting under and by virtue of this act, said board has accepted a site of approximately forty acres in the vicinity of Burley, and is about to move this school to the new location. Appellant commenced this action in the district court of the eleventh district, in and for Cassia county, to enjoin the board from so doing, upon the ground that said Senate Bill No. 298 is unconstitutional and therefore void. After a hearing, the district court dismissed the bill, from which judgment this appeal is taken.

The grounds upon which the constitutionality of this removal act is challenged are: (1) That it was not enacted as required by art. 3, sec. 15, of the constitution; (2) that it being a revenue bill and having originated in the senate, is in contravention of art. 3, sec. 14 of said instrument; (3) that it is in violation of art. 10, sec. 7.

The provisions of said act which are particularly drawn in question by this action are:

"Sec. 1. That the state board of education is hereby authorized and directed to remove the normal school heretofore established at the town of Albion in the county of Cassia and called the Albion state normal school, to a site to be selected and acquired by said board at the city of Burley in Cassia county; provided, that prior to May 1, 1921, there shall be donated to the state of Idaho for the use of said normal school a tract of not less than 40 acres of land within or contiguous or adjacent to the city of Burley . . . .

"Sec. 2. The state board of education is hereby authorized and directed to cause the Albion normal school to be continued during the school year of 1921 at its present location, and, in the event of its removal as herein provided for, to thereafter make such disposal of the buildings and grounds at Albion belonging to the school as may be deemed by the board to be to the best advantage of the state, and the said board may, in its discretion, remove said buildings or any part or portion of them, or any of their contents or equipment, or any part thereof, and use the same in constructing, furnishing and equipping buildings to be provided or erected on the new site of said school: provided, that if such buildings, furniture, fixtures, grounds or any part thereof, shall be sold, the proceeds of such sale are hereby appropriated to and for the use and benefit of the Albion normal school. . . .

"Sec. 3. The state board of education is hereby authorized and directed to cause to be erected on the above mentioned tract of land at Burley, when the same shall have been donated and conveyed as herein provided for, in time for the commencement of the school year in September, 1922, suitable buildings for the purposes of said school, and at that time to remove said school from its present location to the new location as herein provided for, and that hereafter said school shall be conducted in said location under the name of the Albion state normal school.

"Sec. 5. That there is hereby assessed upon all taxable property within the state of Idaho, for the years 1921-1922, a tax of one-eighth mill on the dollar, and the proceeds thereof are hereby appropriated for the purpose of erecting the buildings herein provided for."

Appellant's first contention is that said Senate Bill No. 298 was not passed by the legislature in accordance with the requirements of art. 3, sec. 15, of the constitution, which requires that "No law shall be passed except by bill, nor shall any bill be put upon its final passage until the same, with the amendments thereto, shall have been printed for the use of the members; nor shall any bill become a law unless the same shall have been read on three several days in each house previous to the final vote thereon," the contention being that because there were lodged with the Secretary of State two engrossed bills, one of...