Lincoln v. Haugen

• Decision Date: 27 February 1891
• Citation: 48 N.W. 196,45 Minn. 451
• Parties: LINCOLN v HAUGEN ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

45 Minn. 451

48 N.W. 196

LINCOLNvHAUGEN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 27, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. The printed journals of the legislature, made up and printed in pursuance of section 23, c. 5, Gen. St. 1878, and published by the authority of the state, are competent evidence of their contents; and their effect as evidence will not be destroyed by clerical errors or omissions shown to have occurred in writing up the record to complete the written journals, also provided for by section 23.

2. In cases where the constitution requires the yeas and nays to be entered upon the journal of either branch of the legislature upon the passage of a bill, such requirement is mandatory. In other cases it is sufficient if it show the state of the vote, in order that it may appear that the bill was passed by a majority vote, as required by section 13, art. 4, of the constitution. The practice is, however, subject to be regulated by the rules of either house. Chapter 129, Laws 1885, held to have been passed in conformity with the requirements of the constitution, and is valid.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; LOCHREN, Judge.

Crooker & Huffcutt, (J. M. Shaw, of counsel,) for appellant.

C. J. Rockwood, for respondents.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The principal question in this case, and the only one requiring particular consideration, is whether chapter 129, Gen. Laws 1885, was enacted in a constitutional manner by the legislature. The question is raised upon the following statement of facts, found in the record: In the printed journal of the senate it appears that on the final passage of the bill, “the roll being called, there were yeas, 26, and nays, 7, as follows: Those voting in the affirmative were [here follow the names of 26 senators;] those voting in the negative were [here follow the names of 7 senators;] so the bill passed, and its title was agreed to.” But in the written journal of the senate in the office of the secretary of state the record, evidently imperfect, reads as follows: “The roll being called, there were yeas, 26, and nays, 7, as follows: Those voting in the affirmative were,”-here follow the 7 names recorded in the negative in the printed journal, and the 26 names there recorded in the affirmative are omitted altogether; that is to say, the state of the vote is correctly entered, but there is an imperfect record in the written journal of the names of the persons voting upon the passage of the bill. It appears to be the general legislative practice in this state to take the vote on the final passage of bills by roll-call. In some of the state constitutions, the yeas and nays are required to be entered on the journal upon the passage of every bill; in others, at the request of one or more members, or a definite proportion thereof. Bouv. Law Diet. “Yeas and Nays.” By the constitution of the United States the yeas and nays of the members of either house, on any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal. Such constitutional directions are clearly imperative. Cooley, Const. Lim. 171. Whether it is necessary to the validity of an act in all cases, or in any particular instance, to set out the yeas and nays in full in the journal, depends upon the nature of the constitutional provisions that must govern the practice. Apart from such constitutional provisions, the ordinary method of taking a vote upon a question is by the voices, show of hands, or by a rising vote, affirmative and negative. It may also be done by roll-call. But where the object is to ascertain the names as well...