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 log book. Chitty, Law of Nat. 199.
In Commercial Law. A book used among merchants, in which the contents of the waste-book are separated every month, and entered on the debtor and creditor side, for more convenient posting in the ledger.
In Legislation. An account of the proceed ings of a legislative body.
In England, there is no written constitu tion 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 it self; 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 con tain similar provisions.
On a reference to the journal of the fed eral house of representatives to ascertain whether a duly authenticated law was pass ed, 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 discov ering the meaning of a statute ; U. S. v. Freight Ass'n, 166 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 be fore 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 Greenl. Ey. § 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. 260, 24 L. Ed. 154 ; Koehler v. Hill, 60 Ia. 549, 14 N. W. 738, 15 N. W. 609 ; Wise v. Bigger, 79 Va. 280; Brown v. Nash, 1 Wyo. 85. Cooley, Const. Lim. 135; contra, Gnob v. Cushman, 45 Ill. 119 ; Board of Commissioners of Madison County v. Bur ford, 93 Ind. 383. If it should appear there from that any act did not receive the 'req uisite vote, or that the act was not constitu tionally adopted, the courts may adjudge the act void; Cooley, Const. Lim. 164. Failure to comply with certain constitutional provi sions 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 sufficiently 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 constitu tional requirement, it will not be presumed that such requirement was disregarded, and where they do not expressly show whether the act was constitutionally passed it will be held valid unless there is an omission of some matter expressly required by the con stitution 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.