Jackson v. State

• Decision Date: 14 January 1902
• Citation: 31 So. 380,131 Ala. 21
• Parties: JACKSON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

31 So. 380

131 Ala. 21

JACKSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 14, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Blount county; J. A. Bilbro, Judge.

Andrew Jackson was convicted of criminal homicide, and he appeals. Reversed.

Geo. H Parker and W. L. Martin, for appellant.

Chas G. Brown, Atty. Gen., R. T. Robinett, and Emory C. Hall, for the State.

DOWDELL J.

The validity of the act approved March 5, 1901, entitled "An act to change the boundary line between Blount and Cullman counties" (Acts 1900-01, p. 2051), is the sole question presented for consideration. The question was raised in the court below by the defendant (appellant here) on his challenge for cause of certain named jurors that were put on him, and who, at the time they were summoned, as well as at the time of the trial, were residents of the territory cut off by said act from the county of Blount and added to the county of Cullman. The right of challenge for cause was denied to the defendant by the circuit court, and in so doing said court determined the invalidity of said act. As shown by the journals of the house and senate, the following facts relating to the passage of the act are disclosed: The bill originated in the house as house bill 1,298, and was introduced and read for the first time and referred to the committee on counties and county boundaries on February 7 1901. On February 9th it was reported favorably with substitute, read the second time, and substitute adopted, and on February 20th the bill was read the third time and passed by a two-thirds majority of the house. It was then sent to the senate, where it was, on February 26th, read the first time, and referred to the committee on municipal and county organizations, and on February 27th it received a favorable report from said committee, and was read the second time. On February 28th it was taken up, the amendments offered by the committee were adopted, the bill then read for the third time, and passed by a two-thirds majority in the senate. The bill was then sent back to the house, and on the same date February 28th, that body concurred in the senate amendments by a majority vote only, taken on the yeas and nays. It is insisted on the part of the state that the vote by which the house concurred in the senate amendments, being less than two-thirds, was not in accordance with the requirements of section 2, art. 2, of the constitution, while it is insisted on the other hand that the bill, having received a two-thirds majority on third reading in both houses, and a majority vote on concurrence, in accordance with section 22, art. 4, was a strict compliance with the provisions of the constitution in the passage of said act. Section 2, art. 2, contains the following provision: "The general assembly may, by a two-thirds vote of both houses thereof, arrange and designate boundaries for the several counties of this state, which boundaries shall not be altered except by a like vote," etc. Section 22, art. 4, provides: "No amendments to bills by one house shall be concurred in by the other except by a vote of a majority thereof, taken by yeas and nays, and the names of those voting for and against recorded upon the journals; and reports of committees of conference shall in like manner be adopted in each house." To the journals, only, of the two houses, which constitute the memorial of legislative proceedings, can we look to ascertain the nature, character, and extent of amendments made to a bill in the course of its passage; and, where the journals fail to disclose the nature and character of the amendment, it is not permissible to resort to other evidence for that purpose. Ex parte Howard-Harrison Iron Co., 119 Ala. 484, 24 So. 516, 72 Am. St. Rep. 928. In the present case it is not shown by the journal of either the house or senate in what the senate amendment to the bill consisted. For aught that we can know, the senate amendment in no wise...