APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The statute which purports to be an act of the legislature of the Territory of Arizona, entitled "An act classifying the counties of the Territory and fixing the compensation of officers therein," and to have been approved by the Governor on the 21st day of March, 1895, not only appears in the published laws of the Territory, but is filed with and in the custody of the secretary of the Territory, and is signed, the parties agree, by the Governor, the President of the territorial Legislative Council, and the Speaker of the territorial House of Representatives.
Is it competent to show, by evidence derived from the journals of the Council and House of Representatives, as kept by their respective chief clerks, from the endorsements or minutes made by those clerks on the original bill while it was in the possession of the two branches of the legislature, and from the recollection of the officers of each body, that this act, thus in the custody of the territorial Secretary, and authenticated by the signatures of the Governor, President of the Council, and Speaker of the House of Representatives,
contained, at the time of its final passage, provisions that were omitted from it without authority of the council or the house, before it was presented to the Governor for his approval?
Upon the authority of Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 671, et seq., this question must be answered in the negative. That case, in its essential features, does not differ from the one now before the court. It was claimed in that case that a certain provision or section was in the act of Congress of October 1, 1890, c. 1244, 26 Stat. 567, as it passed, but was omitted without authority from the bill or act authenticated by the signatures of the presiding officers of the two houses of Congress and approved by the President. What was said in that case is directly applicable in principle to the present case. After observing that the Constitution expressly required certain matters to be entered on the journal, and, waiving any expression of opinion as to the validity of a legislative enactment passed in disregard of that requirement, the court said: "But it is clear that, in respect to the particular mode in which, or with what fullness, shall be kept the proceedings of either house relating to matters not expressly required to be entered on the journals; whether bills, orders, resolutions, reports and amendments shall be entered at large on the journal, or only referred to and designated by their titles or by numbers; these and like matters were left to the discretion of the respective houses of Congress. Nor does any clause of that instrument, either expressly or by necessary implication, prescribe the mode in which the fact of the original passage of a bill by the House of Representatives and the Senate shall be authenticated, or preclude Congress from adopting any mode to that end which its wisdom suggests. Although the Constitution does not expressly require bills that have passed Congress to be Attested by the signature of the presiding officers of the two houses, usage, the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings and the rules under which the two bodies have acted since the organization of the government, require that mode of authentication." Again: "The signing by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and by the President of the Senate, in open session, of an enrolled
bill, is an official attestation by the two houses of such bill as one that has passed Congress. It is a declaration by the two houses, through their presiding officers, to the President, that a bill, thus attested, has received, in due form, the sanction of the legislative branch of the government, and that it is delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional requirement that all bills which pass Congress shall be presented to him. And when a bill, thus attested, receives his approval and is deposited in the public archives, its authentication as a bill that has passed Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable. As the President has no authority to approve a bill not passed by Congress, an enrolled act in the custody of the Secretary of State and having the official attestations of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the President of the Senate and of the President of the United States, carries, on its face, a solemn assurance by the legislative and executive departments of the government, charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress. The respect due to coequal and independent departments requires the judicial department to act upon that assurance and to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated, leaving the courts to determine, when the question properly arises, whether the act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the Constitution."
It is said that, although an enrolled act properly authenticated is sufficient, nothing to the contrary appearing on its face, to show that it was passed by the territorial Legislature, it cannot possibly be -- that public policy forbids -- that the judiciary should be required to accept as a statute of the Territory that which may be shown not to have been passed in the form in which it was when authenticated by the signatures of the presiding officers of the territorial Legislature, and of the Governor. This, it is contended, makes it possible for these officers to impose upon the people, as a law, something that never, in fact, received legislative sanction. Considering a similar contention in Field v. Clark, the court said: "But this possibility is too remote to be seriously considered in the present
inquiry. It suggests a deliberate conspiracy to which the presiding officers, the committees on enrolled bills and the clerks of the two houses must necessarily be parties, all acting with a common purpose to defeat an expression of the popular will in the mode prescribed by the Constitution. Judicial action based upon such a suggestion is forbidden by the respect due to a coordinate branch of the government. The evils that may result from the recognition of the principle that an enrolled act, in the custody of the Secretary of State, attested by the signatures of the presiding officers of the two houses of Congress, and the approval of the President, is conclusive evidence that it was passed by Congress, according to the forms of the Constitution, would be far less than those that would certainly result from a rule making the validity of Congressional enactments depend upon the manner in which the journals of the respective houses are kept by the subordinate officers charged with the duty of keeping them." These observations are entirely applicable to the present case.
But it may be added that, if the principle announced in Field v. Clark involves any element of danger to the public, it is competent for Congress to meet that danger by declaring under what circumstances, or by what kind of evidence, an enrolled act of Congress or of a territorial Legislature, authenticated as required by law, and in the hands of the officer or department to whose custody it is committed by statute, may be shown not to be in the form in which it was when passed by Congress or by the territorial Legislature.
It is difficult to imagine a case that would more clearly demonstrate the soundness of the rule recognized in Field v. Clark than the case now under examination. The President of the Council and the Speaker of the House of Representatives state that it was not "the custom," when an enrolled bill was presented for signature, to call the attention of their respective bodies to the fact that such bill was about to be signed; that the bill was simply handed up, when it would be signed and handed back, without formality and without ...