189 P.2d 87 | N.M. | 1947
Appellant, a small loan operator, instituted this proceeding against the State Bank Examiner, Woodlan Saunders, to restrain the enforcement of the provisions of House Bill No. 96 of the Eighteenth Legislature, Chapter 174, N.M. Sts. 1947, known as the "Small Loan Act", as violative of Section 20, Article 4 of the Constitution, as a first cause of action, and for a declaratory judgment as a second cause of action.
From a judgment dismissing the complaint, the case is brought here for review.
The validity of the Act is challenged on account of the failure of the journals of the House of Representatives and Senate to show that the enrolled and engrossed bill was read publicly in full in each house and signed by the proper officers of each in open session.
The constitutional provision, necessary to a consideration, reads: "Immediately after the passage of any bill or resolution, it shall be [properly] enrolled and engrossed, and read publicly in full in each house, and thereupon shall be signed by the presiding officers of each house in open session, and the fact of such reading and signing shall be entered on the journal."
The court made findings of fact which we deem necessary to a decision, as follows:
"9. The enrolled and engrossed copy of H.B. No. 96, duly signed by the officers of the House and Senate, and approved and signed by the Governor, was deposited with the Secretary of State as a public record in her office within the time required by law, and is now on file in said office as such public record.
"15. That the journal of the Senate kept by the Senate during the regular session of the legislature of the State of New Mexico, which was the Eighteenth Regular Session of the state legislature, does not *3 show that House Bill No. 96 was either read in full or that the enrolled and engrossed copy thereof was read in full in open session, or signed in open session by the officers of the senate."
An examination of the record shows that the findings are supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, such findings are binding here.
This brings the case squarely within the rule announced in Kelley v. Marron,
This provision was before the court in Smith v. Lucero,
In State v. Hall,
Notwithstanding, appellant strongly urges that we should look to the journal to ascertain whether the bill in question had beensigned and certified as required by the Constitution. If, as in Smith v. Lucero, supra, where the journal affirmatively showed that a proposition did not receive the required majority, it was held that we could not look beyond the enrolled and engrossed bill, by what reason may mere silence of the journal be permitted to impeach it? We fail to appreciate the distinction. In any event, the question is foreclosed by the decisions of this court. *4
It is our opinion that when a bill has been duly introduced, finally passed by both houses, signed by the proper officers of each, approved by the Governor, and filed in the office of the Secretary of State, it is properly authenticated as required by the Constitution, and so appearing, as an enrolled and engrossed bill, resort to the journal or other evidence, is inadmissible to contradict or impeach it.
Nevertheless, the journal is an indispensible and constituent part of legislative procedure and the directory provision regarding it ought to be followed. It may strongly support a challenged statute (Earnest v. Sargent,
In support of his contention, appellant cites Smith v. McMichael, Ga.Sup.,
That court re-affirmed the "enrolled bill" rule, and then held the Act void for the reason that the enrolled bill did not embrace the required notice as a part of the act. It took notice of the enrolled bill itself as showing non-compliance. It was held to be the manifest intention of this provision that the bill as finally enrolled as the statute should manifest its regularity. The construction was not inconsistent with prior decisions of that court.
We, therefore, conclude that the enrolled and engrossed bill, thus signed by the proper officers of each house, approved by the Governor and filed in the office of the Secretary of State as a part of the records of that office, is not only the best evidence as to its regularity and authenticity, but is conclusive, without reservation, that all constitutional requirements have been fully complied with in its enactment.
Our decision renders unnecessary discussion of the second cause of action. It would be without purpose.
Accordingly, the trial court was correct in sustaining the Act and dismissing appellant's *5 cause. The judgment will be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
BRICE, C.J., and LUJAN and McGHEE, JJ., concur.
SADLER, J., did not participate.