State of Arkansas vs. Little Rock, Mississippi River and Texas R'y Co.
On the same day, after several amendments, on motion of Mr. Johnson, the bill was read the third time and put upon its final passage, and passed; pp. 481-2.
No suspension of the rules for the third reading appears.
On the same day the bill was reported to the senate, "house amendment was concurred in," the bill read a third time and passed. Senate Journal, p. 246. No suspension of the rules shown.
Thus it appears that the substitute was not read on three several days, in either house, nor does it appear that the rules were suspended by a two-thirds vote. The act was therefore, passed, it would seem, in violation of the Constitution.
In the cases of The Town of South Ottawa v. Perkins, and The Board of Supervisors of Kendall County v. Post, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, reported in the Central Law Journal, vol. 4, p. 442, the question of the validity of an act of the Legislature of the State of Illinois was considered at great length, and Mr. Justice Bradley, who delivered the opinion of the majority of the court, said: "As early as 1853, it was decided in Spangler v. Jacob, 14 Ill., 299, that it was competent to show from the journal of either branch of the Legislature that a particular act was not passed in the mode prescribed by the Constitution, and thus defeat its operation altogether. The Constitution requires each house to keep a journal, and declares that certain facts, made essential to the passage of a law, shall be stated therein. If those facts are not set forth, the conclusion is that they did not transpire. The journal is made up under the immediate direction of the house, and is presumed to contain a full and coinplete history of its proceedings. If a certain act receive the constitutional assent of the body, it will so appear on the face of the journal. And when a contest arises as to whether the act passed, the journal may be appealed to, to
