Citations for Appellees.

It is a substitute for Title XXXIII of the Revised Statutes, as the act of 1883 is wholly superseded thereby.

It constitutes one connected system, arranged with relation to its several parts; constituting a statutory embodiment of what is known in English legislative parlance as the budget; or the result of an examination made to determine the amount of estimated revenues, needed to meet estimated requirements.

There is a mutual relation and interdependence between the duties upon woollen goods and upon wool; between the bounty upon domestic sugar and the placing of foreign upon the free list, and the latter's conditional subjection to duty, at the will of the President.

Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General for appellees. To the Government's brief was attached an appendix containing a list of the authorities, by States, upon the question whether the legislative journals could be used to impeach the completely enrolled act, duly recorded and authenticated. This list is printed in the margin.1

1 Alabama. In Alabama it is held that the validity of the seeming acts may be inquired into, and the presumption from due enrolment overthrown by the journals. Dew v. Cunningham, 28 Ala. 466; Jones v. Hutchinson, 43 Ala. 721; Moody v. The State, 48 Ala. 115; State v. Buckley, 54 Ala. 599; Harrison v. Gordy, 57 Ala. 49; Perry County v. Railroad Co., 58 Ala. 546; Walker v. Griffith, 60 Ala. 361; Moog v. Randolph, 77 Ala. 597; Sayre v. Pollard, 77 Ala. 608 Abernathy v. The State, 78 Ala. 411; Stein v. Leeper, 78 Ala. 517; Hall v. Steele, 82 Ala. 562.

Arkansas. - In Arkansas the journals control the enrolled act. Burr v Ross, 19 Ark. 250; Vinsant v. Knox, 27 Ark. 266; English v. Oliver, 28 Ark. 317; State v. Little Rock & Texas Railway, 31 Ark. 701; Worthen v. Badgett, 32 Ark. 496; Smithee v. Garth, 33 Ark. 17; State v. Crawford, 35 Ark. 237; Chicot County v. Davies, 40 Ark. 200; Smithee v. Campbell, 41 Ark. 471; Webster v. Little Rock, 44 Ark. 536; Davis v. Gaines, 48 Ark. 370; Dow v. Beidelman, 49 Ark. 325; Glidewell v. Martin, 51 Ark. 559.

It is noticeable that in the last case and in two previous cases, the judges delivering the opinions intimate a wish that the English rule were in force. California. -In California the rulings have been various.

In Fowler v. Peirce, 2 Cal. 165, the court permitted oral evidence to be introduced to show that an act was approved by the governor after adjournment. This case was overruled in Sherman v. Story, 30 Cal. 253, where it was held that the enrolled act could not be impeached by the journals.

Opinion of the Court.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

Duties were assessed and collected, according to the rates established by what is known as the Tariff Act of October 1,

This was followed in People v. Burt, 43 Cal. 560. After these two cases were decided a new constitution was adopted in California, under which the journals have been examined to impeach the enrolled bill. County of San Mateo v. So. Pac. Railroad, 8 Sawyer, 238; Weill v. Kenfield, 54 Cal. 111; Oakland Paving Co. v. Hilton, 69 Cal. 479; People v. Dunn, 80 Cal. 211.

Colorado.

In Colorado the journals control the enrolled act. In re Roberts, 5 Col. 525; Hughes v. Felton, 11 Col. 489.

Connecticut. In Connecticut the journals cannot be used to impeach the recorded act. Eld v. Gorham, 20 Conn. 8.

Dakota Territory. -In Dakota Territory ex rel. v. O'Connor, 5 Dak. 397, it was held that the certificate of the presiding officers to the passage of the bill would not be overthrown by the mere silence of the journals. The question of a conflict between the enrolled act and the journals was not considered.

Delaware. We have found no cases in this State in which the question is raised.

Florida. In this State the journal may be resorted to to impeach the enrolled act. State v. Brown, 20 Fla. 407; State v. Deal, 24 Fla. 293. Georgia. So far as our examination has extended, there are no cases on the subject in Georgia.

Idaho. No cases found on the subject.

Illinois. In this State the journals control in any conflict between them and the enrolled act as to the validity thereof. Spangler v. Jacoby, 14 Ill. 297; Turley v. Logan County, 17 Ill. 151; People v. Hatch, 19 Ill. 283; Prescott v. Ill. & Mich. Canal Trustees, 19 Ill. 324; Schuyler County v. People ex rel., 25 Ill. 181; People v. Starne, 35 Ill. 121; Wabash &c. Railroad v. Hughes, 38 Ill. 174; Illinois Central Railroad v. Wren, 43 Ill. 77; Bedard v. Hall, 44 Ill. 91; Grob v. Cushman, 45 Ill. 119; People v. De Wolf, 62 Ill. 253; Hensoldt v. Petersburg, 63 Ill. 157; Ryan v. Lynch, 68 Ill. 160; Happel v. Brethauer, 70 Ill. 166; Miller v. Goodwin, 70 Ill. 659; Plummer v. The People, 74 Ill. 361; Larrison v. Peoria &c. Railroad Co., 77 Ill. 11; Binz v. Weber, 81 Ill. 288; People v. Loewenthal, 93 Ill. 191; Wenner v. Thornton, 98 Ill. 156; Burritt v. Commissioners of State Contracts, 120 Ill. 332; Leach v. The People, 122 Ill. 420; South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U. S. 260; Walnut v. Wade, 103 U. S. 683; Ohio v. Frank, 103 U. S. 697; Post v. Supervisors, 105 U. S. 667.

The

Indiana. — In Indiana now, the journals do not control the enrolled act. Formerly they were consulted for the purpose of impeaching the act. journals were referred to in Skinner v. Deming, 2 Ind. 558; Coleman v. Dobbins, 8 Ind. 156; McCulloch v. The State, 11 Ind. 424; Coburn v. Dodd, 14 Ind.

347.

The rule was changed and the enrolled act held conclusive of its valid

Opinion of the Court.

1890, on woollen dress goods, woollen wearing apparel and silk embroideries, imported by Marshall Field & Co.; on silk

passage. Evans v. Browne, 30 Ind. 514; Bender v. The State, 53 Ind. 254; Edger v. Board of Commissioners of Randolph County, 70 Ind. 331; State v. Denny, 21 N. E. Rep. 252.

Iowa.

In Iowa the enrolled act in the Secretary of State's office is held to be the ultimate proof of the law. Clare v. The State, 5 Iowa, 510; Duncombe v. Prindle, 12 Iowa, 1.

Where the validity of a constitutional amendment was in question, as different provisions of the constitution applied, it was held that the journals could be consulted. Koehler & Lange v. Hill, 60 Iowa, 543.

Kansas. In Kansas the enrolled act is controlled by the journals. Haynes v. Heller, 12 Kans. 384, Reporter's note; Division of Howard County, 15 Kans. 194; Leavenworth County Commissioners v. Higginbotham, 17 Kans. 62; Prohibitory Amendment Cases, 24 Kans. 700; State v. Francis, 26 Kans. 724; In re Vanderberg, 28 Kans. 243; Weyand v. Stover, 35 Kans. 545; Kansas v. Robertson, 41

Kans. 200.

Common

Kentucky. - In Kentucky the question has not been squarely decided whether the journals in a conflict would overcome the presumption of the enrolled act, but the intimations of the court are that it would. wealth v. Jackson, 5 Bush, 680; Auditor v. Haycroft, 14 Bush, 284. Louisiana.- In this State it is held that the enrolled act is conclusive. The Louisiana State Lottery Co. v. Richoux, 23 La. Ann. 743; Whited v. Lewis, 25 La. Ann. 568.

Maine. In this State the enrolled act is held to be the best evidence, and not to be overcome by the journals where its record is complete. Weeks v. Smith, 81 Me. 538.

-

Maryland. In this State the enrolled act was at first held to be conclusive. Afterwards the decisions are that it may be impeached by the journals. The first series of cases is: Fouke v. Fleming, 13 Md. 392; Mayor etc. of Annapolis v. Harwood, 32 Md. 471.

Under a new constitution the following cases held that the enrolled act might be impeached by the journals and other evidence: Berry v. Baltimore & Drum Point Railroad, 41 Md. 446; Legg v. Annapolis, 42 Md. 203; Strauss v. Heiss, 48 Md. 292.

Massachusetts.

subject.

--

- In this State no cases have been found bearing on the

Michigan. In this State the enrolled act is controlled by the entries on the journals. Southworth v. Palmyra & Jackson Railroad, 2 Gibbs, 287; Green v. Graves, 1 Douglass, 351; Hurlbut v. Britain, 2 Douglass, 191; People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481; People v. Onondaga County Supervisors, 16 Mich. 254; Steckert v. East Saginaw, 22 Mich. 104; Pack v. Barton, 47 Mich. 520; Attorney General v. Joy, 55 Mich. 94; Callaghan v. Chipman, 59 Mich. 610; Attorney General v. Rice, 64 Mich. 385; People ex rel. Hart v. McElroy, 72 Mich. 446; Sackrider v. Saginaw County Supervisors, 79 Mich. 59; Stow v. Grand

Opinion of the Court.

and cotton laces imported by Boyd, Sutton & Co.; and on colored cotton cloths imported by Herrman, Sternbach & Co. 26 Stat. 567, c. 1244, § 1.

Rapids, 79 Mich. 595; Rode v. Phelps, 80 Mich. 598; Caldwell v. Ward, 83 Mich. 13; People ex rel. v. Burch, 84 Mich. 408.

Minnesota. In this State it is held that the journals control the enrolled act. Supervisors v. Heenan, 2 Minn. 330; State v. Hastings, 24 Minn. 78; Burt v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad, 31 Minn. 472; Minnesota v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143; Lincoln v. Haugan, 45 Minn. 451.

Mississippi.In this State the enrolled act is held conclusive. In one case a different rule was laid down, namely, in the case of Brady v. West, 50 Miss. 68. The case was overruled. The following cases hold the law conclusive: Green v. Weller, 32 Miss. 650; Green v. Weller, 33 Miss. 735; Swann v. Buck, 40 Miss. 268; Ex parte Wren, 63 Miss. 512.

Missouri. In this State the enrolled act was at first held conclusive, though where an amendment to the constitution was in question, the journals were consulted. State v. McBride, 4 Mo. 303.

The following case held the enrolled act to be conclusive: Pacific R. R. v. The Governor, 23 Mo. 353.

Upon the change of the constitution the legislative journals have been allowed to impeach the recorded act. Bradley v. West, 60 Mo. 33; State v. Mead, 71 Mo. 266.

Montana. - In this State no cases have been found on the subject. Nebraska. -In this State the journals are used to impeach the enrolled act. Hull v. Miller, 4 Neb. 503; State v. Liedtke, 9 Neb. 462; Cottrell v. The State, 9 Neb. 125; Ballou v. Black, 17 Neb. 389; State v. McLelland, 18 Neb. 236; State ex rel. Poole v. Robinson, 20 Neb. 96; In re Groff, 21 Neb. 647; State v. Van Duyn, 24 Neb. 586.

Nevada. In this State the enrolled act is held conclusive.

State v. Swift,

10 Nev. 176; State v. Rogers, 10 Nev. 250; State v. Glenn, 18 Nev. 34. In State ex rel. Stevenson v. Tufly, 19 Nev. 391, where the constitution required an amendment to be entered in full on the journals, an amendment was held invalid because the requirement was not complied with.

New Hampshire.

In this State the enrolled act is controlled by the journals. Opinions of the Justices, 35 N. H. 579; Opinions of the Justices, 45 N. H. 607; Opinions of the Justices, 52 N. H. 622.

New Jersey. In this State the enrolled act is held to be the most appropriate evidence of the law, and is not overcome by inconsistent entries in the journals. Pangborn v. Young, 32 N. J. Law, 29; Freeholders of Passaic County v. Stevenson, 46 N. J. Law, 173; Standard Underground Cable Co. v. The Attorney General, 46 N. J. Eq. 270.

New York. In New York the Revised Statutes (1 Rev. Stats. 187, sections 10 and 11) provided that the Secretary of State should receive the enrolled act, and should endorse upon it the day, month and year when the same became a law, and that his certificate should be conclusive of the

Opinion of the Court.

The importers severally protested against the assessment upon the ground that the act was not a law of the United

facts stated therein. There was also a provision that no bill should be deemed to be passed by the assent of two-thirds of the members, unless the fact was certified by the presiding officer of each house. The question arose in a number of cases whether certain acts had been passed which were acts of incorporation and were required by the constitution of New York to be adopted by a two-thirds vote. It was held that, for the purpose of ascertaining the vote, recourse might be had to the original enrolled act on file in the Secretary of State's office, and that the absence of the certificate of the presiding officers to a two-thirds vote avoided the act. Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend. 9; Warner v. Beers, 23 Wend. 103; Hunt v. Van Alstyne, 25 Wend. 603; People v. Purdy, 2 Hill, 31; Purdy v. People, 4 Hill, 384; De Bow v. People, 1 Denio, 9; Commercial Bank of Buffalo v. Sparrow, 2 Denio, 97.

It was also stated by one or two judges in a semble (Warner v. Beers, 23 Wend. 125; People v. Purdy, 4 Hill, 384; De Bow v. People, 1 Denio, 14) that the journals might also be examined, but these dicta have not been followed. The present law in New York is that the journals cannot be consulted to determine whether an act has been passed by the requisite vote. People v. Chenango County Supervisors, 8 N. Y. 317; People v. Devlin, 33 N. Y. 269, 283; People v. Marlborough Highway Commissioners, 54 N. Y. 276. In the case of People v. Petrea, 92 N. Y. 128, where the constitution required that all acts, like the act in question, to be valid must be reported by a commission, it was held that the journal might be resorted to to show that the act was not reported by the commission. This view grew out of a peculiar provision of the constitution, and does not take New York out of the line of those States which hold that the enrolled act cannot be impeached by entries upon the journals.

North Carolina. In North Carolina it is held that the enrolled act is conclusive. Broadnax v. Groom, 64 N. C. 244; State ex rel. Scarborough v. Robinson, 81 N. C. 409.

Ohio. In this State the journals are permitted to control the enrolled act. State v. Moffitt, 5 Ohio, 358; Miller v. The State, 3 Ohio St. 475; Fordyce v. Godman, 20 Ohio St. 1; Herron v. Smith, 44 Ohio St. 348; State v. Kiesewetter, 45 Ohio St. 254.

Oregon. In this State the journals control the enrolled act. Mumford v. Sewall, 11 Ore. 67, 71; State v. Wright, 14 Ore. 365.

Pennsylvania. In this State, while the question is not clearly settled, the tendency of the decisions is towards the conclusiveness of the enrolled act. Speer v. Plank Road Co., 22 Penn. St. 376; Southwark Bank v. The Commonwealth, 26 Penn. St. 446; Kilgore v. Magee, 85 Penn. St. 401; Commonwealth v. Martin, 107 Penn. St. 185.

In Southwark Bank v. The Commonwealth, the journals were consulted to determine which of two bills passed first. In Commonwealth v. Martin, the