STICKNEY v. KELSEY. tion was taken that the ort?-?! journals were not produced, but only that if produced they were not admhsible to add to or vary the certificates of the presiding officers, which were conclusive as to the numbers present. The judgment of the Surrogate, which was in writing, and of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, proeceded upon this view of the ob- jection, and trested the question exactly as if the originsl jourmfls heal been offered. But the judgment of the Court of Appeals indicates that there it was objected, for the first tkne as far as the record discloses, test the or?-?! journals were not produced and test the certified copies were not competent evidence of their contents. The inference test such s question was rsised can only be drswn from the coneludlng part of the opinion. After deciding test the presence of the requisite number of members could be proved by recourse to the jour- nals, and that the journsls showed the fsct, the court said: "It is contended, however, test the authenticity of the ?our- hals of the ?e?alature, certified copies of which were put in evidence, was not estab!ish?i, and test with the fsilure of any ori?n?l record certified extrscts therefrom were not. com- petent. Without expressing any opinion on this objection, it is suffieient to ssy that the question has now been set st rest by the enactment, since the. argument of the sppeal, of CEspter 240of the Lsws of 1906, p. 471, which in express terms deeisa?s the printed copies to be the ori?,?,,1 journals of the two houses, and makes them, or copies thereof, competent evi- dence when certified by the respective clerks of the flenste and Assembly." A motion for reheating was made and denied. Based upon this part of the opinion, s supposed Federal ques- tion is alleged in the sixth assignment of error in 'this court, which is as follows: "VI. TESt the ssid Court of Appeals of the State of New York erred in holding ?nd deciding that the motion for re- argument and for a he?ring on the validity and effect of CESp- ter 240 of the Laws of 1906 should he denied; by reason of which denial the ssid Court of Appeals has, in effect, held:
�
