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 bad to the jour nals, if the certificate of the presiding officer fails to show by what vote the bill was pass ed; 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 presump tion 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. Rocker, 36 Fla. 358, 18 South. 767.
Where a bill, as approved, contains im portant clauses which the journals show were stricken out by the amendment in the houses, it is invalid; State v. Wendler, 94 Wis. 369, 68 N. W. 759.
The journals cannot be 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, 45 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 regu larly enacted by the legislature, and is con clusive evidence of its existence and con tents; State v. Jones, 6 Wash. 452, 34 Pac. 201, 23 L. R. A. 340; State v. Young, 32 N.
J. L. 29; Weeks v. Smith, 81 Me. 538, 18
Atl. 325 ; Hunt v. Wright, 70 Miss. 298, 11 South. 608; State v. Glenn, 18 Nev. 34, 1 Pac. 186; People v. Commissioners of High ways of Marlborough, 54 N. Y. 276, 13 Am. Rep. 581.
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 consti tution has required the journals to show the action that has been taken ; McCulloch v. State, 11 Ind. 424; Miller v. State, 3 Ohio St. 475 ; and the presumption that a proper ly authenticated bill was passed is not over come by the failure 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. 632.
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 constitution al requirements ; Lafferty 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 constitu tional provisions and hence have introduced the journals to see if those prerequisites, re quired by the constitution have been per formed; 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, 26 N. W. 806; State v. Brown, 20 Fla. 407; even if proof is adduced that they were; State v. Green, 36 Fla. 154, 18 South. 334.
As to the conclusiveness of an enrolled bill, see Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State, 28 Okl. 94, 113 Pac. 921, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1. See INTERPRETATION.