State v. Bolte

Citation52 S.W. 262,151 Mo. 362
PartiesSTATE ex rel. DAVISSON v. BOLTE et al.
Decision Date03 July 1899
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Edwards & Edwards, for relator. W. H. Haynes, for respondents.

BURGESS, J.

This is a proceeding by mandamus begun in this court, on the information of a private citizen, to compel the presiding officer of the senate, and its secretary, and the speaker of the house of representatives, and its chief clerk, of the 40th general assembly, to perform an official act which it is alleged is required of them by the constitution of the state. The alternative writ was issued on the 20th day of May, 1899, and is as follows: "Whereas, it has been represented to our honorable supreme court by petition of S. P. Davisson that on the 8th day of November, 1898, he was over the age of thirty years, a citizen of Missouri for more than a year prior to said election, and was elected to the senate of the state of Missouri from the Fourth senatorial district of said state, to which he was eligible, and received his certificate of election from the secretary of state, and on the 4th day of January, 1899, was duly sworn in as a member of said senate, and at once entered upon the discharge of his duties as such senator, under the laws and constitution of the state; that said body, to wit, the state senate, is authorized and empowered, by the laws and constitution of the state, to enact such laws for the government of the people, in connection with the other branch of the legislature, as they may deem right and proper, in the discharge of their duties, for the protection of the property and person and government of the people of said state; that in the discharge of his said duties as such senator, and in connection with the other senators, said senate did pass a bill, and enact the same into a law, and entitled `An act to prohibit the sale by dramshop keepers of spirituous, vinous and malt liquors in places other than the dramshop, to prohibit wine rooms, lunch counters, and to amend chapter fifty-six (56) of the Revised Statutes relating to dramshops by the addition of a new section thereto,' said bill being numbered 88; that, after said bill had been passed into a law by the senate as far as could be done by that body, it was sent to the house of representatives, where it was duly concurred in by said body, after being amended by said house of representatives, and was duly returned from said house to the senate aforesaid for the concurrence of that body in said amendments; that said amendments were duly considered by the senate aforesaid, and were rejected, of which nonconcurrence said house of representatives was duly notified, and, said house refusing to recede from its said amendments, a conference was had by committees duly selected from the senate and house aforesaid, who, after considering the matters submitted to them, did agree, and reduce said agreement to writing, and said committees duly reported their said agreement in writing to each branch of the said general assembly of Missouri, where said reports are received and duly adopted by each of said houses in the manner required by section thirty-two, article four, of the constitution of the state of Missouri, and thereby became a part of the record of said senate, and by the act of adopting said report, by each of said houses as aforesaid, said senate bill numbered eighty-eight (88), the title to which is herein set out, with the house amendments thereto, as reported by said conference committee, became a valid and binding act upon the state of Missouri, except the necessary requirement of signing said bill by the presiding officers of said senate and house of representatives, and it then became the duty you, A. H. Bolte, as presiding officer, and you, W. S. McClintick, temporarily presiding over the senate, at the time of the passage of said bill No. 88 and the adoption of said conference report, to affix your signature to said bill, and transmit the same through your secretary to the speaker of the house of representatives, that he might affix his signature to said bill, as required by the constitution of the state, it being charged and alleged in the petition filed herein that you, the said Bolte, and you, the said McClintick, were duly elected as president and presiding officers over said senate, and that you, the said McClintick, were the acting presiding officer at the time of the passage of the bill aforesaid, and it was your duty, after the passage of said bill, which was the adoption of said conference report, to immediately suspend said business of the senate, and affix your signature to said bill, and immediately to cause said bill to be transmitted to the house of representatives by the secretary of the senate, for the signature of the said speaker; and it is further charged that you, as such presiding officer, are preventing the said secretary, who is alleged to be Cornelius Roach, from discharging his said duty in the premises, and that you and the said secretary have combined with other persons unknown to petitioner to prevent said bill becoming a law; and it is further charged that the said speaker of the house of representatives would affix his signature to said act, if you would do your duty in the premises. It is further charged that the act aforesaid is an important enactment and law, and it is for the best interest of the people of the state of Missouri, and of all good citizens, that it should become a law, and would become a law but for the failure of you and your associates to do your duty in the premises. It is further charged in said petition that the said A. H. Bolte is the duly elected and acting lieutenant governor of Missouri, and that you have been duly elected as temporary presiding officer over the senate of Missouri, and that your duties are fully set forth in the petition filed herein, among which is, while so presiding, that when a bill has been passed by your body and concurred in by the house of representatives, and returned to the senate, to immediately suspend all business, and cause said bill to be read in open session, and, when so read, to affix your signature to the same, and cause it to be sent at once to the house of representatives; and it is further...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • State v. Stobie
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1906
    ...rel. Bartley v. Governor, 39 Mo. 388. And the same doctrine has been applied to the legislative department. State ex rel. v. Bolte, 151 Mo. 362, 52 S. W. 262, 74 Am. St. Rep. 537. Speaking of the executive department of the government, Judge Story (2 Story, Const. [5th Ed.] § 1411) says: "T......
  • State ex rel. Gentry v. Becker, 38447.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1943
    ...which to pay respondents' claim required the exercise of judgment and discretion, with which the court could not interfere. State ex rel. v. Bolte, 151 Mo. 362; Albright v. Fisher, 164 Mo. 56; State ex inf. v. Shepherd, 177 Mo. 208; State ex rel. v. Woodbury, 10 S.W. (2d) 524, 321 Mo. 275; ......
  • The State ex rel. McNamee v. Stobie
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1906
    ... ... principle has been invariably adhered to by this court ... [ State ex rel. v. Stone, 120 Mo. 428, 25 S.W. 376; ... State ex rel. Bartley v. Governor, 39 Mo. 388.] And ... the same doctrine has been applied to the legislative ... department. [State ex rel. v. Bolte, 151 Mo. 362, 52 S.W ...          Speaking ... of the executive department of the government, Judge Story (2 ... Story, Const. (5 Ed.), sec. 1411), says: "The Federalist ... has remarked that there is hardly any part of our system, the ... arrangement of which could have been ... ...
  • State ex rel. Hart v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 31, 1947
    ... ... his legislative capacity and performing his legislative ... function and duty. It would be a usurpation of the power of ... the court to assume jurisdiction of government which belongs ... exclusively to the law-making body. State ex rel. v ... Bolte, 151 Mo. 362; Albright v. Fisher, 164 Mo ... 56. (3) In order to determine the proper meaning of the ... proviso in Section 21 of Senate Bill 207, all the provisions ... of the Constitution and statutes regulating magistrate courts ... must be considered and the proper interpretation ... ...
  • 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