Journal

in Maritime Law. The book kept on board of a ship or other vessel which contains an account of the ship’s course, with a short history of every occurrence during the voyage. Another name for logbook. Chltty, Lew of Nat 199. waste-book are separated every month, and entered on the debtor and creditor side, for more convenient posting In the ledger. in Legisiation. An account of the proceedings of a legislative body. In England, there is no written constitution to control the action of parliament and its act cannot, therefore, be questioned, and so the parliament roll is sufficient to prove the authenticity of an act; 1 Strange 446. The journals of parliament are not records and cannot weaken or control a statute, which Is a record and to be tried only by itself; Hob. 110. The constitution of the United States, art.

1, s.

5, directs that “each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy.

See 2 Sto. Const., 5th ed. § 839.

The constitutions of the several states contain similar provisions. On a reference to the journal of the federal house of representatives to ascertain whether a duly authenticated law was passed, the court is bound to assume that the journal speaks the truth, and cannot receive oral evidence to impeach its correctness; U. S. V. Ballin, 144 U. S. 1, 12 Sup. Ct. 507, 36 L. Ed. 321; but the debates in congress may not be resorted to for the purpose of discovering the meaning of a statute; U. S. v. Freight Ass’n, 1G6 U. S. 290, 17 Sup. Ct. 540, 41 L. Ed. 1007. The journal of either house Is evidence of the action of that house upon all matters before it; Root V. King, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 613; Cowp. 17. It is a public record of which the courts may take judicial notice; 1 Greeul.

Ev. § 482; Osburn v. Staley, 5 W. Va. 85, 13 Am. Rep. 640; Moody v. State, 48 Ala. 115, 17 Am; Rep. 28; South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U. S. 2G0, 24 L. Ed. 154; Koehler v. Hill. GO la. 549, 14 N. W. 738, 15 N. W. G09; Wise V. Bigger, 79 Va. 280; Brown v. Nash, 1 Wyo. 85. Cooley, Const Lim. 135; contra, Gnob V. Cushman, 45 111. II9; Board of Commissioners of Madison County v. Burford, 93 Ind. 383.

If It should appear therefrom that any act did not receive the requisite vote, or that the act was not constitutionally adopted, the courts may adjudge the act void; Cooley, Const. Lim. 164. Failure to comply with certain constitutional provisions in the passage of an act can be shown only by the journals; Fullington v. Williams, 98 Ga. 807, 27 S. E. 183; and If the journal suflaciently shows on its face a substantial compliance with constitutional requirements, a mere clerical omission in the journals of either house will not vitiate an act; Price v. City of Moundsville, 43 W. Va. 523, 27 S. E. 218, 64 Am. St. Rep. 878. Where they are silent as to the observance of any constitutional requirement, it will not be presumed the act was constitutionally passed it will be held valid unless there is an omission of some matter expressly required by the constitution to be entered therein; Ritchie v. Richards, 14 Utah 345, 47 Pac. 670. Mere failure to record the passage of an act, in the absence of any affirmative record that it did not secure the concurrence of both houses, is not sufficient to show that the act was not passed, where the certificate of the presiding officer of each house shows that it was regularly passed; Territory v. O’Connor, 5 Dak. 397, 41 N. W. 746, 3 L. R. A. 355. Where the constitution requires that the yeas and nays be entered on the journals, they are conclusive as against not only a printed statute published by law, but a duly enrolled act; Union Bank of Richmond v. Commissioners of Town of Oxford, 119 N. C. 214, 25 S. E. 966, 34 L. R. A. 487. In determining whether an act was passed in accordance with a constitutional provision requiring the assent of two-thirds of the members, recourse may be had to the journals, if the certificate of the presiding officer fails to show by what vote the bill was passed; New York & L. I. Bridge Co. v. Smith, 148 N. Y. 540, 42 N. E. 1088. The journals need not show that a bill was read by sections on its final passage, as required by the constitution, the presumption being that it was read. And where they affirmatively show non-compliance with an essential requirement to the enactment of a bill, or fail to show any essential step in the enactment which the constitution requires them to show, the enrolled bill as evidence of the law is overcome; State v. Hocker, 36 Fla. 358, 18 South. 707. Where a bill, as approved, contains important clauses which the journals show were stricken out by the amendment in the houses, it is Invalid; State v. Wendler, 94 Wis. 309, 08 N. W. 759. The journals cannot bo resorted to by the court for the purpose of inquiring Into the motive which actuated the legislature or' any member of It in enacting a law; Blaine County V. Heard, 5 Idaho 6, 46 Pac. 890. The journals are inadmissible to show that parts of the bill, as passed by the houses, were omitted from the enrolled bill as signed by the presiding officers of the two houses and the governor, where all bills are required to be signed by the governor after having passed the legislative assembly; Harwood v. Wentworth, 4 Ariz. 378, 42 Pac. 1025. An enrolled bill, on file in the office of the secretary of state, must be accepted without question by the courts as having been regularly enacted by the legislature, and is conclusive evidence of its existence and con- J. L. 29; Weeks v. Smith, 81 Me. 538, 18 Ati. 325; Hunt v. Wright, 70 Miss. 298, 11 South. 608; State v. Glenn, 18 Nev. 34, 1 Pac. 186; People v. Commissioners of Highways of Marlborough, 64 N. Y. 276, 13 Am. Rep. 681. Every reasonable presumption is made in favor of the action of a legislative body; it will not be presumed from the mere silence of the journals that either house disregarded a constitutional requirement in the passage of an act, unless in cases where the constitution has required the journals to show the action that has been taken; Mc Culloch V. State, 11 Ind. 424; Miller v. State, 3 Ohio St. 475; and the presuuii»tion that a properly authenticated bill was passed is not overcome by the^ailure of the journals to show any fact which is not specifically required by the constitution to be entered therein; Miesen v. Canfield, 64 Minn. 513, 67- N. W. G32. Such a bill properly enrolled, signed, and approved cannot be Impeached by reference to the journals of either house, to show that it was enacted in conformity to constitutional requirements; Rafferty v. Huffman, 99 Ky. 80, 35 S. W. 123, 32 L. R. A. 203; Com. V. Hardin County Court, 99 Ky. 188,.35 S. W. 275. But other courts have considered It part of their duties to ascertain whether the legislature has complied with the constitutional provisions and hence have introduced the journals to see if those prerequisites, required by the constitution have been performed; State V. Wray, 109 Mo. 594, 19 S. W. 86; Hunt v. State, 22 Tex. App. 396, 3 S. W. 233; Callaghan v. Chipman, 59 Mich. 610, 20 N. W. 806; State v. Brown, 20 Fla. 407; even if proof is adduced that they were; State v. Green, 30 Fla. 154, 18 South. 334. As to the conclusiveness of an enrolled hill, see Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State, 28 Okl. 94, 113 Pac. 921, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1.

See INTEKPBETATION.