Stewart v. Wilson Printing Co.

• Decision Date: 24 January 1924
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 652.
• Citation: 210 Ala. 624,99 So. 92
• Parties: STEWART, CLERK OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, v. WILSON PRINTING CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

99 So. 92

210 Ala. 624

STEWART, CLERK OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, v. WILSON PRINTING CO.

3 Div. 652.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 24, 1924

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.

Petition of the Wilson Printing Company for writ of mandamus to J. H Stewart, as clerk of the House of Representatives of Alabama. From a judgment awarding the writ, respondent appeals. Affirmed.

Rushton Crenshaw & Rushton and James J. Mayfield, all of Montgomery for appellant.

Hill, Hill, Whiting & Thomas, of Montgomery, for appellee.

SAYRE J.

On the facts disclosed by appellee's petition and appellant's response, the trial court issued its writ of mandamus commanding appellant, as clerk of the House of Representatives, to deliver to petitioner a copy of the journal of the House for the session of 1923; the object and purpose of the writ being to enable petitioner, in the matter of printing and binding the journal, to have the advantage of its contract with the State Board of Convict Supervisors for the public printing and binding for the year beginning October 1, 1923, and ending September 30, 1924. Respondent has appealed.

The Legislature elected at the general election in November, 1922, met, pursuant to the Constitution, on January 9, 1923, and remained in session until February 10, 1923, at which time it adjourned until July 10, 1923. On July 10th the Legislature reconvened and remained in session until September 28, 1923, when, its term under the Constitution (section 48) having expired, it adjourned sine die. Petitioner's contract was agreed upon by and between petitioner and the Board of Convict Supervisors, the Board acting therein in discharge of duty imposed upon it by law, on September 29, 1923, and was approved by the Governor, auditor, and treasurer on October 3d, next. Respondent, on February 28, 1923, had delivered to the Brown Printing Company, which had the contract for the public printing for the year October 1, 1922, to September 30, 1923, a copy of that part of the journal which showed the proceedings of the houses from January 9th to February 10th, inclusive, and the same had been put into type and printed-but not bound or delivered to the secretary of state-and on October 2, 1923, respondent, acting on the advice of the Board of Convict Supervisors, delivered to the Brown Printing Company a copy of that part of the journal of the House which showed its proceedings from July 10th to September 28th, inclusive, and respondent alleged that he had no other or further copy for delivery to petitioner. On October 27, 1923, respondent filed in the office of the secretary of state a copy of the journal. This proceeding was commenced October 31, 1923.

Section 55 of the Constitution requires that-

"Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings and cause the same to be published immediately after its adjournment. ***"

The journal thus prescribed is a record of the proceedings of the House day by day, and under the Constitution of this state is of great importance, for the validity of every legislative enactment depends upon an affirmative appearance upon the journal of one or more of the necessary steps in legislation, as witness sections 62, 64, 66, and 125 of the Constitution.

Referring to the fact that, by the Constitution, the sitting of each Legislature is limited to 50 working days, that it had a contract with the State Board of Control and Economy (which became the Board of Convict Supervisors February 10, 1923 [Acts 1923, p. 67]), for the public printing in all other respects like unto the contract with petitioner, but covering the year October 1, 1922, to September 30, 1923, that in respect of the laws requiring the public printing to be done under contract, the acts and journals of the Legislature are classified together (Code, §§ 1647, 1648), and, so in respect of specifications of type, paper, binding, etc. (Code, § 1669, amended Acts 1919, p. 183), that provision is made for the printing of the general acts in pamphlet form immediately after their approval (Acts 1915, p. 159), and that the printer must, within 40 days after being furnished with copies of the acts, print, "and *** within forty days after receiving the last act" from the secretary of state deliver to the secretary of state, the bound volumes of the acts; "and within thirty-five days thereafter must deliver to such officer" (Code, § 1671) the bound volumes of the journals-referring to these provisions of the law and its contract, respondent is firmly of opinion that it was in the contemplation of the Legislature and its contract with the Board of Control and Economy that the public printer (so to refer to the contractor for the public printing) who had the contract for the fiscal year in which the Legislature met should print the acts and journals of that session. Due consideration of the contract and its related law has led us to a different conclusion.

Section 1671 of the Code of 1907, in substantially its present shape, providing for the delivery of both acts and journals of the Legislature, dates from the Code of 1852. Section 83. Provisions for the printing of the general laws in pamphlet form immediately after their approval and delivery to the secretary of state-that is, within three days-was made for the first time in 1915. Acts 1915, supra. No such provision for the printing of the journals is made. From the act relating exclusively to the immediate printing of the acts (as to which there is no pending question), no argument can be drawn with reference to the printing of the journals. That matter is left to be determined without reference to the act of 1915.

When a bill has passed both houses of the Legislature, authenticated by the signatures of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, and approved by the Governor, it becomes an act of the Legislature and its text is exempt from change by any authority whatsoever, but the journals are subject to correction; each House has the power to correct its journals so as to make them speak the truth at any time before final adjournment. West End v. Simmons, 165 Ala. 359, 51 So. 638; Commissioners v. Farmers Bank (N. C.) 21 Ann. Cas. 812, note. Section 928 of the Code of 1907 (amended, Acts 1919, p. 458), which appeared first in the Code of 1896 (section 2240), relates to the journals only. It requires that-

"Within thirty days after the adjournment of any session of the Legislature, the secretary of the senate and the clerk of the House of Representatives must file and arrange the papers of their respective houses in the office of the secretary of state, and copy and deliver to the public printer the journals of their respective houses, with proper indexes thereto."

This means the papers and the journals of the entire session, and, obviously, this duty in respect of them can be performed only after final adjournment. In Montgomery Beer Bottling Works v. Gaston, 126 Ala. 446, 28 So. 497, 51 L. R. A. 396, 85 Am. St. Rep. 42, decided in 1899, this court-not to quote at too great length-held that the Constitution and statutes of this state as plainly imply, as if they contained the express language, that the journals of the two houses required by law to be kept shall be in permanent, substantial book form, thereby promoting their accessibility and the better securing their permanent preservation, and it was said that-

"No other form of preserving the original legislative history of the state would subserve the constitutional and legislative requirements."

As stated above, respondent filed in the office of the secretary of state a copy of the journal in question on October 27, 1923. This filing was some 20 and odd days after the beginning of the term of petitioner's contract, whether estimated from the 1st or the 3d of October, and must be accepted as having been done immediately after the adjournment of the Legislature, for, in our judgment, section 928 of the Code constitutes a competent legislative definition of the phrase "immediately after adjournment" as employed in section 55 of the Constitution. The word "immediately" may, and we know as matter of fact often does, mean "quickly"; "without unnecessary delay" (Webster's Internat. Dict.), and, we doubt not, bears that meaning in section 55. It is to the permanent record, prepared in substantial book form, that the courts must look for the legislative history of laws enacted, for "common and judicial knowledge alike assure us that such has been the manner of making up and keeping these journals during the history of the state." Montgomery Beer Bottling Works v. Gaston, supra.

They may not look elsewhere, for while a journal is printed and published for the convenience and information of the public, yet where there is a discrepancy, the record in the office of the secretary of state must govern. Ex parte Howard-Harrison Co., 119 Ala. 484, 24 So. 516, 72 Am. St. Rep. 928; State ex rel. McKinley v. Martin, 160 Ala. 181, 48 So. 846; State ex rel. Crenshaw v. Joseph, 175 Ala. 579, 57 So. 942, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 248. So it seems clear that the journal to be printed for public convenience and information must be identical with the permanent record, not a "batch of papers," which must be filed in the office of the secretary of state within 30 days after the final adjournment of the Legislature, and there kept. Customarily some time after adjournment is consumed in preparing or completing the journal in its permanent form (and the Legislature makes provision for that service to be performed after its adjournment) after which it is authenticated by the signatures-to limit our observations to the necessities of the present case-of the speaker and clerk and the permanent copy lodged with the...