Thе reporter of the decisions of this court files this petition invoking judgment upon the validity of the act of March, 1889. Among other prоvisions that act contains the following: “ Opinions involving no disputed principles of law or equity or rule of practice, and no question except as to whether the verdict or decision is sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to' the evidence, shall be printed in brevier type, without analysis or syllabus. * * The index and tables of cases shall be subject to the supervision and dirеetion of the Supreme Court. * * It shall be the duty of the Supreme Court to make a syllabus of each opinion recorded by sаid court, except as hereinbefore otherwise provided.” Acts of 1889, p. 87.
If the act assumed to require the judges of the Suрreme Court to perform the duties of the clerk by preparing entries, or to discharge the duties of the sheriff by preparing returns for him, we suppose no one would hesitate to declare it void. The fact that the officer whose duties the act аssumes to direct the judges to perform is the reporter, and not the clerk or the sheriff, can make no difference. Neithеr shade nor semblance of difference can be discerned by the keenest vision
The preparation of the syllabi is an essential part of the reporter’s work. Head-notes may be copyrighted, but the opinions of thе court can not be. The syllabi, or head-notes, may be copyrighted because they are the work of the reporter аnd not of the judges. The work is essentially and intrinsically ministerial, and, therefore, can not be ^performed by the judges or the court.
Thе soundness of the rule stated by Judge Cooley is beyond controversy, and it is hardly necessary to go further, since it is conclusive here, but the provisions of our Constitution are so clear and decisive that we can not forbear referring to them. These provisions are found in article 7, and read thus:
*85 “ Section 5. The Supreme Court shall, upon the decision •of every case, give a stаtement in writing of each question .arising in the record of such case and the decision of the court thereon.
“ Section 6. The General Assembly shall provide, by law, for the speedy publication of the' decisions of the Supreme Court made under this Constitution; but no judge shall be allowed to report such decisions.”
These provisions, when read in connection with section 1 ■of artiсle 3, distributing the powers of government, and section 1 of article 7, lodging the whole judicial power of the State in the courts, mаke it perfectly clear that the Legislature can not impose any of the duties of the reporter upon the judges of the Supreme Court. Section 5 defines the ■duties of the court, and to these duties the Legislature can make no additions. The last clause of section 6 is a positive prohibition, and no judge can, without an open defiance of the Constitution he has sworn to support, take upon himself the duties of the l^iorter.
The principle which controls here has been asserted аnd applied by this court. By force of this principle the act of 1875, concerning the office of reporter, was overthrown. Judge Buskirlc, in speaking of the decision, says it was the unanimous judgment of the court. Buskirlc Practice, 12. 'That learned judge discusses the question at length and very •clearly proves that the Legislature has no power to require the judges to exercise any оf the functions of the office of reporter. There are many decisions asserting and enforcing the general princiрle involved here. It is, indeed, everywhere ■agreed that constitutional courts are not subject to the will of the Legislature, fоr, as said in Wright v. Defrees,
It is our judgment that the petition brings before us these three questions: (1st) Can the Legislature impose ministerial duties upon the court ? (2d) Can the Legislature add duties to those devolved upon the judges by the Constitution ? (3d) Can the Legislature, in violation of the constitutional inhibition, authorize the judgеs to discharge the essential duties of a reporter? Upon these questions we express our judgment and sustain the petitionеr’s contention, but we neither express nor intimate an opinion upon any others, although others are discussed.
We have no doubt that it is our right and our duty to