State ex rel. Schwartz v. Bledsoe

• Decision Date: 08 July 1947
• Citation: 31 So.2d 457,159 Fla. 243
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SCHWARTZ, et al. v. BLEDSOE et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

31 So.2d 457

159 Fla. 243

STATE ex rel. SCHWARTZ, et al. v. BLEDSOE et al.

Florida Supreme Court

July 8, 1947

Rehearing Denied July 9, 1947.

Keen & O'Kelley, J. Velma Keen and Chas. H Spitz, all of Tallahassee, for relators.

Parker Foster & Wigginton, of Tallhassee, for respondents.

CHAPMAN, Justice.

This is a case of original jurisdiction in mandamus. It has been made to appear by petition for an alternative writ of mandamus that House Bill 122 ^[1] was introduced into the Florida Legislature on April 15, 1947. It is a local bill and provides for an election to determine whether or not the corporate limits to the municipality of Hallandale, Broward County, Florida, should be extended to include a certain area described in the Act. On April 17 1947, it passed the House and was promptly certified to the Senate, when Section 1 was amended and duly passed the Senate as amended and certified to the House of Representatives where, on the 7th day of May, 1947, the House considered the Senate's amendment, which was by the House duly approved and concurred in. The measure was engrossed and enrolled signed by the presiding officers of the House of Reppresentatives and the Senate, the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate, and on May 8, 1947, House Bill 122 was duly presented to the Governor of Florida for his consideration and approval.

On May 12, 1947 on motion of Representatives Sterling of Broward County, the House of Representatives voted to recall from the Governor's office House Bill 122 and the measure on the following day, May 13, 1947, pursuant to the House's request, was by the Governor of Florida duly returned to the House of Representatives as had by it been requested. On the motion of Representative Sterling of Broward the vote by which House Bill 122 passed the House of Representatives was duly brought up and reconsidered. After a vote to reconsider the measure had been adopted by the House of Representatives, the bill was placed back on second reading and in its regular routine, upon further consideration of House Bill 122, the House by a majority vote went on record and favored an indefinite postponement thereof. On June 6, 1947, the Legislature of Florida adjourned sine die. The Speaker of the House and the Chief Clerk were requested to transmit enrolled House Bill 122 to the office of Secretary of State, which demand was refused, but it is alleged that it is the legal duty of these officials having the custody and control of enrolled House Bill 122 to return the same pursuant to law to the office of the Secretary of State. An alternative writ of mandamus was issued on the aforesaid petition and served upon the respondents.

Section 15.07, Fla. Stats. 1941, F.S.A., provides: 'All original acts and resolutions passed by the legislature, and all other original papers acted upon thereby, together with the journal of the senate, and the journal of the house of representatives, shall, immediately upon the adjournment thereof, be deposited with, and preserved in, the office of the secretary of state, by whom they shall be properly arranged, classified, and filed, provided that the journal of the executive session of the senate shall be kept free from inspection or disclosure except upon the order of the senate itself or some court of competent jurisdiction.' House Rule 47 provides: 'All House Bills and Memorials shall be introduced in quadruplicate. Six copies of all House Resolutions, House Concurrent Resolutions and House Joint Resolutions shall be introduced. The original copy of all House Bills, House Resolutions, House Joint Resolutions, House Concurrent Resolutions, and Memorials shall be on good bond paper. Fach copy of House Bills and Memorials shall be accompanied by a title slip on which shall be entered in full the exact title thereof. The Sergeant-at-Arms is hereby authorized and directed to furnish to the press and public the triplicate copies of such bills and resolutions for examination and he is authorized to call to his assistance such person as he may need as custodian of these files known as 'Triplicate Files'. Any person authorized hereunder to obtain the triplicate copies of such bills and resolutions for examination shall sign a receipt before obtaining same from the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the use by any person of these triplicate copies shall be temporary and not permanent, and all copies must be returned to the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms without unnecessary delay.'

The return of the respondents to the alternative writ of mandamus discloses that the parties hereto about in accord as to the facts in controversy. Paragraph VIII of the returns shows that Bill 122 is in possession of the Chief Clerk of the House and is now being preserved as a permanent record. Paragraph IX of the return specifically denies that House Bill 122 is an original act of the Legislature of the State of Florida, but alleges that the original act, within the contemplation of Section 15.07, supra, is the document originally introduced and deposited with the Secretary of State, Paragraph X of the return shows that the respondents under Section 15.07, deposited House Bill 122 with the Secretary of State on June 11, 1947. That respondents refused and continue to refuse to deposit with the Secretary of State enrolled House Bill 122 because the enrolled Bill is not an original Act of the 1947 Session of the Legislature. The law does not make it the duty of the respondents to deposit with the Secretary of State enrolled House Bill 122 upon the adjournment of the Legislature.

Paragraph XI of respondents' return shows that the words in Section 15.07, supra, viz.: 'All original acts and resolutions passed by the legislature' and 'a duly authorized and certified enrolled bill of the Legislature' are not one and the same instrument. The term 'All original acts and resolutions passed by the legislature,' as used in Section 15.07, supra, refer solely and only to the original bill which was introduced into the Legislature, with proper endorsements disclosing the various steps taken in the passage of the Act. Paragraph XII of the return sets up that the indefinite postponement of House Bill 122 by the House of Representatives was concluded within five days after the Bill was transmitted to the Governor's office for his approval. It was clearly the intention of the House of Representatives that the Bill should not become a law. Paragraph XIII sets up that the request by the House of the Governor for the return of House Bill 122 is the prevailing practice and custom followed by this and previous sessions of the Florida Legislature; when a recalled measure was returned, the House would reconsider the vote by which the measure was passed and then by a majority vote of the House the said measure would be indefinitely postponed. Paragraph XIV set out that if an enrolled Bill is held to be an original Act of the Legislature, within the meaning of Section 15.07, supra, then the Governor is deprived of his constitutional prerogative of having ten days after date of adjournment to approve or disapprove the same.

The relators filed a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus notwithstanding the return of the respondents on the grounds: (1) that the return is insufficient in law and fact; (2) the return shows that the respondents failed to comply with the mandates of Section 15.07, F.S.A., and connot legally refuse to deposit with the Secretary of State enrolled House Bill 122 as presented to the Governor; (3) the custom and usage pleaded in the return is legally insufficient to overcome the established law relative to the power of a single House of the Legislature to recall a duly enrolled Bill from the Governor; (4) the return of the respondents is legally insufficient.

The commands of the alternative writ require the respondent Thomas D. Beasley, as Speaker, and Lamar Bledsoe, as Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives, to deposit in the office of the Secretary of State House Bill 122 as duly enrolled and signed and presented to the Governor of Florida. If the respondents default in performing the acts and doings aforementioned, then may each of them be required on short notice to show cause why they fail to comply with and abide by the orders and decrees of this Court?

Counsel for relators contend that the hereinafter stated question should be answered in the affirmative, while counsel for the respondents contend that the correct answer thereto is 'no.' The question is viz.: Is an enrolled bill properly authenticated and certified by the appropriate officials of the House of Representatives and Senate of the State of Florida, an original Act of the Legislature within the purview and contemplation of Section 15.07, Fla. Stats.1941, F.S.A., requiring that the original Acts and Resolutions passed by the Legislature be deposited with and preserved in the office of the Secretary of Seate immediately upon the adjournment thereof?

It is established law that where a legislative bill, regular on its face, has been signed by the legislative officers who by the constitution are mandatorily required to sign 'all Bills' passed by the Legislature, and the bill is approved and signed by the Governor and by him filed in the office of the Secretary of State within the time fixed by the constitution for the Governor to approve or disapprove it then such bill is a record of official acts of the Legislature and executive department of the government and such bill then becomes a law. Amos v. Gunn, 84 Fla. 285, 94 So. 615. The duty of designated legislative officers to sign all duty passed bills is made absolute by the constitution and such official duties continue until properly performed to authenticate ...