People Ex Rel. Harless v. Hatch

CourtIllinois Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWALKER
Citation33 Ill. 9,1863 WL 3219
Decision Date30 November 1863
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. HARLESSv.OZIAS M. HATCH, SECRETARY OF STATE.THE PEOPLE, ETC., ex rel. KEYESv.JESSE K. DUBOIS, AUDITOR OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

33 Ill. 9
1863 WL 3219 (Ill.)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. HARLESS
v.
OZIAS M. HATCH, SECRETARY OF STATE.THE PEOPLE, ETC., ex rel.
KEYES
v.
JESSE K. DUBOIS, AUDITOR OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

November Term, 1863.


The questions for determination in these two cases, arose upon demurrer to the returns to two alternative writs of mandamus, issued from the Supreme Court upon the relation of Thomas Harless, and Charles A. Keyes, respectively, and against Ozias M. Hatch, Secretary of State, and Jesse K. Dubois, Auditor of Public Accounts, respectively.

The relief sought by the former of said writs, and the grounds therefor, are fully stated in the writ itself, which is as follows:

“The People of the State of Illinois, to O. M. Hatch, Secretary of the State of Illinois:

Whereas, The People of the State of Illinois, upon the relation of Thomas Harless, of the county of Cook, have given the Honorable the Judges of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois to understand and be informed, that the twenty-third general assembly of the State of Illinois, at a regular session begun on the first Monday of January, A. D. 1863, passed in the manner and according to the forms prescribed by the Constitution of the State of Illinois, to wit: The senate on the 22d day of January, and the house of representatives on the 8th day of June in said year, ‘A Bill for an Act to Incorporate the Wabash Railway Company,’ which declared the relator, Horace A. Hulburt and Charles Hitchcock, and all such persons as should thereafter become stockholders in the company thereby created a body corporate, by the name and style of the Wabash Railway Company, with the usual powers of corporations, and with authority to construct and operate a railway for the transportation of persons and their ordinary baggage in certain streets in the city of Chicago, and which it was declared should be in force from and after its passage, and that said bill was enrolled, signed by the secretary of the senate, in which branch of the general assembly it originated, and by the speaker of the house of representatives, and the following entry made by the speaker of the senate, to wit: ‘I sign the within bill with this statement: The same was passed, in my opinion, under a misapprehension on the part of senators, arising out of the statement made by the senator introducing the same previous to the passage of the same,’ and then signed also by the speaker of the senate, and the said enrolled bill so certified, was, on the 12th day of June, A. D. 1863, presented to the governor for the purpose and in the manner required by section twenty-one of article four of the Constitution, which said bill so presented to the governor, was not and has not been approved by him. And the said governor has not at any time returned the said bill, with his objections, to the senate, the house in which it originated, unless the facts hereinafter set forth constitute such a return. And more than ten days (Sundays excepted) have elapsed since the same was so presented to him; and the general assembly did not by their adjournment prevent the return of said bill within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it was presented to him, unless the facts hereinafter set forth constitute such adjournment within the meaning of the Constitution.

The people aforesaid, upon the relation of said Thomas Harless, give the Honorable the Judges of the Supreme Court further to understand and be informed, that, on the 2d day of June, A. D. 1863, while both branches of the general assembly were in session, Mr. Bushnell, the senator from La Salle, introduced in the senate a joint resolution that the general assembly adjourn sine die, on the 10th day of June, 1863, which was laid over under rule 43 of the senate, that ‘all resolutions presented to the senate shall lie one day on the table, unless otherwise ordered,’ and no further action was taken thereon, until in the forenoon of June 8th, 1863, when the resolution was called up, and after being amended so as to read, ‘ Resolved, by the senate, the house of representatives concurring therein, that this general assembly will adjourn sine die, on the 8th inst., at six o'clock P. M.,’ it was passed by the senate, and a message of such action was delivered by the secretary of the senate to the house of representatives during their forenoon session of that day. The house of representatives adjourned until two o'clock P. M., and immediately after the house was called to order, at the said hour of two o'clock, the said message from the senate was taken up, and upon consideration of the resolution, the same was amended by striking out ‘8th,’ and inserting in lieu thereof, “22d,' and striking out ‘six o'clock P. M.,’ and inserting ‘ten o'clock A. M.,’ and then passed by the house of representatives as amended, which action was immediately, on the assembling of the senate at three o'clock P. M., reported by message to the senate, and as soon as the message was delivered the senate took up the same, and the question being, shall the senate concur in the amendment of the house, the vote was taken by yeas and nays, when the question was decided in the negative, as follows, to wit:

Yeas--Berry, Blanchard, Gregg, Green, Knapp, Lindsey, Mason, Moffett, Ogden, Vandeveer, and Worcester.--11.

Nays--Addams, Allen, Bushnell, Dummer, Funk, Lansing, Mack, Peters, Pickett, Richards, Schofield, and Ward.--12;

And that during the afternoon session on the said 8th day of June, the house of representatives passed the following resolution, to wit:

‘Whereas, the house desires to recede from its action taken this day, in amending and adopting the senate resolution in relation to adjournment, therefore,

Resolved, That the honorable senate is hereby requested to return said resolution as amended, to the house, for reconsideration,' and the house notified the senate of the passage thereof by a message delivered by the clerk of the house immediately after (and before any intervening business had occurred) the vote of the senate to non-concur in the amendment of the house, and after the delivery of such message, there were no other proceedings in either branch of the general assembly, or messages sent or delivered, on the question of an adjournment sine die, on that or any other subsequent day; nor had there been any before that day, and at the hour of four o'clock P. M. of June 8th aforesaid, the senate adjourned until ten o'clock the next morning. The house adjourned at five o'clock P. M., until seven o'clock P. M., when it again convened and adjourned at nine o'clock thirty-five minutes P. M., until nine o'clock June 10th, in pursuance of a prior resolution; and further to understand and be informed, that the senate, in pursuance of adjournment, met at ten o'clock A. M., the 9th day of June, and proceeded as usual with business: and after the reading of the journal, Senator Knapp reported from the committee on township organization, a bill in relation to a bridge across Salt Creek, which was ordered to a third reading. Several messages were received from the house of representatives. Senator Green moved to refer the bill for an act in relation to claims allowed by the army board, to the committee on public accounts and expenditures, which was agreed to; when Senator Mack moved to adjourn until ten o'clock next morning, on which the yeas and nays were demanded, when two voted aye, and fourteen nay. Senator Blanchard moved a call of the house, when sixteen senators answered, and the sergeant-at-arms was instructed to bring in absent members, and on motion of Senator Green, the senate adjourned until three o'clock P. M., at which hour the senate met pursuant to adjournment, and on motion of Senator Mason adjourned until ten o'clock next morning. That the senate met pursuant to adjournment, at ten o'clock June 10th, when the journal was read and approved, and the senate proceeded with their usual business, in the course of which, bills were reported from several of the standing committees, and ordered to a third reading, and reports made by the committee on engrossed and enrolled bills, after which the speaker of the senate read the following communication, to wit:

+------------------------+
                ¦‘STATE OF ILLINOIS, ¦)¦
                +----------------------+-¦
                ¦EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. ¦)¦
                +------------------------+
                

To the General Assembly of the State of Illinois:

Whereas, On the 8th day of June, A D. 1863, the senate adopted a joint resolution to adjourn sine die on said day at six o'clock P. M., which resolution, upon being submitted to the house of representatives on the same day, was by them amended by substituting the 22d day of June and the hour at 10 o'clock A. M., which amendment the senate thereupon refused to concur in;

Whereas, The Constitution of this State contains the following provision, to wit:

“SEC. 13, ART. IV. In case of disagreement between the two houses with respect to the time of adjournment, the governor shall have power to adjourn the general assembly to such time as he thinks proper, provided it be not a period beyond the next constitutional meeting of the same.”

Whereas, I fully believe that the interests of the State will be best subserved by a speedy adjournment, the past history of the present assembly holding out no reasonable hope of beneficent results to the citizens of the State, or the army in the field, from its further continuance;

Now, therefore, In view of the existing disagreement between the two houses in respect to the time of adjournment, and by virtue of the power vested in me by the Constitution aforesaid, I, Richard Yates, governor of the State of Illinois, do hereby adjourn the general assembly now in session, to the Saturday next preceding the first Monday in January, A. D. 1865.

Given at Springfield, this 10th day of June, A. D. 1863.

RICHARD YATES, Governor.”'

“And after reading the same vacated the chair. And on motion of Senator...

To continue reading

Request your trial
68 practice notes
  • Ex parte Coker
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 7 December 1990
    ...of state has the power to determine if any particular bill or act will be a law of the land. In Illinois ex rel. Harless v. Hatch, 33 Ill. 9 at 142 (1863), the Supreme Court of Illinois answered in the negative: "The secretary cannot decide what acts make a law. He has nothing to do with th......
  • Coyle v. Smith, Case Number: 2225
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 9 February 1911
    ...24 Okla. 433, 103 P. 762; Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19, 6 L. Ed. 537; In re Special Session, 9 Colo. 642, 21 P. 477; People v. Hatch, 33 Ill. 9; Farrelly v. Cole, 60 Kan. 356, 56 P. 492, 44 L. R. A. 464; Taylor v. Beckham, 108 Ky. 278, 56 S.W. 177, 49 L. R. A. 258, 94 Am. St. Rep. 357; Peop......
  • State v. Dickerson, 1,892.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • 31 December 1910
    ...or not frequently rests in the discretion of the court. State ex rel. v. Commissioners of Phillips Co., 26 Kan. 419; People v. Hatch, 33 Ill. 9, 134; People ex rel. Sherwood v. Board of Canvassers, 129 N.Y. 360 [29 N.E. 345, 14 L. R. A. 646]. The writ will be granted to prevent a failure of......
  • Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n (Ex parte U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n), 1120904.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 7 February 2014
    ...121 [ (1885) ] ), not ‘when well founded doubt as to the alleged duty arises' (People v. Johnson, 100 Ill. 537 [ (1881) ]; People v. Hatch, 33 Ill. 9 [ (1839) ] ). ‘Where the validity of a judgment of conviction is doubtful, writ will not issue to enforce it.’ Rex v. Broderip, 5 Barn. & C. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
68 cases
  • Ex parte Coker
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 7 December 1990
    ...of state has the power to determine if any particular bill or act will be a law of the land. In Illinois ex rel. Harless v. Hatch, 33 Ill. 9 at 142 (1863), the Supreme Court of Illinois answered in the negative: "The secretary cannot decide what acts make a law. He has nothing to do with th......
  • Coyle v. Smith, Case Number: 2225
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 9 February 1911
    ...24 Okla. 433, 103 P. 762; Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19, 6 L. Ed. 537; In re Special Session, 9 Colo. 642, 21 P. 477; People v. Hatch, 33 Ill. 9; Farrelly v. Cole, 60 Kan. 356, 56 P. 492, 44 L. R. A. 464; Taylor v. Beckham, 108 Ky. 278, 56 S.W. 177, 49 L. R. A. 258, 94 Am. St. Rep. 357; Peop......
  • State v. Dickerson, 1,892.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • 31 December 1910
    ...or not frequently rests in the discretion of the court. State ex rel. v. Commissioners of Phillips Co., 26 Kan. 419; People v. Hatch, 33 Ill. 9, 134; People ex rel. Sherwood v. Board of Canvassers, 129 N.Y. 360 [29 N.E. 345, 14 L. R. A. 646]. The writ will be granted to prevent a failure of......
  • Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n (Ex parte U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n), 1120904.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 7 February 2014
    ...121 [ (1885) ] ), not ‘when well founded doubt as to the alleged duty arises' (People v. Johnson, 100 Ill. 537 [ (1881) ]; People v. Hatch, 33 Ill. 9 [ (1839) ] ). ‘Where the validity of a judgment of conviction is doubtful, writ will not issue to enforce it.’ Rex v. Broderip, 5 Barn. & C. ......
  • 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