State v. Carley
| Decision Date | 15 April 1925 |
| Citation | 104 So. 577,89 Fla. 361 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. BUFORD, Atty. Gen. v. CARLEY et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Quo warranto proceeding by the State of Florida, on relation of Rivers H. Buford, Attorney General, against Earle E. Carley claiming to be Mayor, and others, claiming to be Commissioners, of the Town of Belleair Heights.
Writ dismissed.
Syllabus by the Court
Statute presumed duly enacted, unless legislative journals show failure to comply with mandatory constitutional requirements. A statute is presumed to have been duly enacted, unless the legislative journals show that the mandatory requirements of the Constitution for the enactment of statutes were not complied with in the consideration and passage of the particular bill.
Purpose of requirement that every bill shall be read by sections on final passage is to prevent hasty legislation. The purpose of the provision of the Constitution that 'every bill shall be read by its sections * * * on its final passage' is to inform the legislators and the public of the contents of each bill, and to prevent hasty legislation.
Constitution does not require that legislative journals show affirmatively that bill was read by sections on final passage; although legislative journals do not show bill was read by sections on final passage, it is presumed to have been so read. Our Constitution does not require that the journals shall show affirmatively that a bill was read 'by sections' on its final passage, and, if they do not so show, the presumption, in the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, would be that it was read by sections as required.
Nothing but clear violation of Constitution justifies holding statute invalid. In passing upon the constitutionality of statutes generally, no matter from what standpoint the assault thereon may be made, it is a well-settled and cardinal rule that nothing but a clear violation of the Constitution will justify the courts in overruling the legislative will; and where there is a reasonable doubt as to the constitutionality of an act, it must be resolved in favor of the act, and it should be upheld.
If legislative journals show failure to comply with constitutional requirement, enrolled bill falls. Acts of the Legislature, duly enrolled and signed by the officers of the two houses and filed in the office of the Secretary of State with the approval of the Governor thereon, are prima facie valid and authoritative laws, but the journals of the two houses that enacted them may be resorted to to ascertain whether the mandatory requirements of the Constitution have been complied with by the Legislature in their enactment and, if such journals show explicitly, clearly, and affirmatively that any essential constitutional requirement has not been complied with, or if they fail to show any essential step in the progress of enactment that the Constitution expressly requires them to show, such, for example, as the entry of the yeas and nays upon the final passage of any bill in either house, then such journals would prevail as evidence, and the enrolled bill, as evidence of law, would have to fall.
Courts take judicial notice of legislative journals. The journals kept by the two houses of the Legislature of their proceedings are public records, of which the courts of the state will take judicial notice.
Parol evidence not admissible against affirmative showing of legislative journals. Parol evidence is not admissible against the affirmative showing of the journals of the Legislature.
Parol evidence not received to contradict entries in legislative journals relative to proceedings in enacting statutes. In adjudicating matters involving legislative proceedings in enacting statutes, the courts will accept as true the entries relative to such matters as they appear in the journals that are required by the Constitution to be kept by each house; and parol evidence will not be received to contradict such entries.
Courts have no substantive power to review and nullify legislative proceedings or enactments; courts may determine whether legislative journals show that statute was not duly enacted. The courts have no substantive power to review and nullify legislative proceedings or enactments; but, in adjudicating litigated rights under a statute, the courts may determine whether the legislative journals show that the statute was not duly enacted.
Courts presume that bill was read by sections on final passage in each house, unless contrary clearly appears by legislative journal. The Constitution (art. 3, § 17) provides that 'every bill' passed by the Legislature 'shall be read by its sections' 'on its final passage' in each house, but it does not require an entry to be made in the journals that a bill was so read, and the courts will conclusively presume that a bill was read by its sections on its final passage in each house, unless the contrary clearly appears by the journals.
Presumption not entertained against truth of any appropriate legislative journal entries. The appropriate entries in legislative journals import verity. The courts will not entertain presumptions against the truth of any appropriate legislative journal entries.
Burden is on one asserting that statute was not legally enacted to show it by legislative journals. The burden is upon one asserting that a statute was not legally enacted to show it by the lagislative journals.
Statement of legislative journals that bill was read by sections on final passage accepted as true, although it was physical impossibility for all bills passed at such session to have been read by sections on final passage. The Constitution (art. 3, § 17), provides that 'every bill shall be read by its sections * * * on its final passage,' with an exception not material here; and, where the legislative journals state that a particular bill was read by its sections on its final passage, such statement in the journals will be taken as true, even though the journal entries, as to the hours of convening and adjourning of the particular session of the legislative body at which the bill was passed, show that it was perhaps a physical impossibility for all of the bills passed at the particular session to have been each severally and consecutively read by its sections on its final passage as required by the Constitution, since there was ample time for the bill in controversy to have been read by its sections on its final passage, and other evidence will not be received to contradict the legislative journal entries upon the subject.
Court should be careful to keep within constitutional limits of power, and to proceed by due course of law. In performing its high judicial functions, a court should be careful to keep within the constitutional limits of its own power, and to proceed 'by due course of law.'
William M. Taliaferro and James F. Glen, both of Tampa, for relator.
Kelly & Williams, of Clearwater, for respondents.
In quo warranto proceedings brought by the Attorney General of the state to test the validity of chapter 9686, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1923, under which the functions of a municipal corporation called Belleair Heights are being exercised, it is alleged said chapter----
'is not a law of the state of Florida, and was never passed by the Legislature of the state of Florida, in that the said document was never read by its sections, either in the House of Representatives of the state of Florida, or in the Senate of the state of Florida, on its final passage; that the afternoon session of the House of Representatives of the state of Florida, on May 24, 1923, adjourned at 6 o'clock p. m. until 8:15 o'clock p. m. on the said day, and reconvened at 8 o'clock p. m. on said date, which facts are shown on page 2856 of the said journal, to which reference is hereby made, and that it appears thereafter on page 2893 of the said journal that the document hereinbefore mentioned, purporting to incorporate the said town of Belleair Heights, being House Bill No. 1118, was taken up and read a second time by its title only, and that thereupon the said House Bill No. 1118 was read a third time in full and put upon its passage, and that, upon the roll call on the passage of the said bill, the vote was 'yeas 60, nays none,' so that the bill passed and was ordered certified to the Senate; that the House of Representatives adjourned at the hour of 10:15 p. m. on the said 24th day of May, 1923 which fact is shown at page 2912 of the said journal; that between the hour of 8 o'clock p. m. or 8:15 p. m. on May 24, 1923, when the House of Representatives met for the transaction of business, and prior to the consideration of the said document designated as chapter 9686 of the Laws of Florida, it appears from the journal of said house that, in addition to disposing of other business shown by the said journal, the House caused to be read in full proposed acts of legislation which embrace approximately 230 pages of the printed Acts of 1923, and had approximately forty roll calls, and that subsequently to the disposition shown by the said Journal of said House Bill No. 1118, the said House of Representatives, at its said night session, prior to the adjournment thereof at 10:15 p. m. on May 24, 1923, in addition to disposing of other business shown by the said journal caused to be read in full proposed acts of legislation which embrace approximately 90 printed pages of the Acts of 1923, and had approximately twenty additional roll calls of the members of the said house; that the entries in the said journal at the said night session on May 24, 1923, are false and untrue, and shown on the face of the said journal to be false...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carlton v. Mathews
...rel. Turner & Hocker, 36 Fla. 358, 18 So. 767; State ex rel. Buford v. Carley, 89 Fla. 361, 104 So. 577, 579. In the case of State ex rel. Buford v. Carley, supra, we 'A statute is presumed to have been duly enacted, unless the legislative journals show that the mandatory requirements of th......
-
Whitney v. Hillsborough County
...a statute has been duly enacted unless the legislative journals, or other evidence of equal dignity, show the contrary. State v. Carley, 89 Fla. 361, 104 So. 577. See, also, State v. Brown, 20 Fla. 407; State Green, 36 Fla. 154, 18 So. 334; West v. State, 50 Fla. 154, 39 So. 412. The doctri......
-
Haddock v. State
... ... overruling the legislative will, and where there is a ... reasonable doubt as to the constitutionality of an Act, it is ... the duty of this Court to resolve the doubt in favor of the ... Act and sustain its constitutionality. See State v ... Carley, 89 Fla. 361, 104 So. 577; State v ... Bryan, 50 Fla. 293, 39 So. 929. When a law is enacted by ... the Legislature, it will be presumed that a valid ... constitutional enactment was intended. See Hiers v ... Mitchell, 95 Fla. 345, 116 So. 81; State v ... Goodgame, 91 Fla. 871, 108 ... ...
-
Tanner v. Premier Photo Service, Inc.
...the proper discharge of official duty'. See People ex rel. Scearce v. Glenn County, 100 Cal. 419, 35 P. 302; State ex rel. Buford v. Carley, 89 Fla. 361, 104 So. 577; Hull v. Miller, 4 Neb. 503; State ex rel. Douglas County v. Frank, 60 Neb. 327, 83 N.W. 74; McClellan v. Stein, Judge of Rec......