Thompson

People ex rel. Leverson v. Thompson

Good Law
1885 Cal. LEXIS 854·2 Cal. Unrep. 481·7 P. 142
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 28, 1885No. 9846California361 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ross, J.

The real ground of the petitioner’s objection to the act of the legislature of March 13, 1883, entitled “An act to divide the state of California into congressional districts,” is that the bill was not read on three several days in each house after amendment. The constitution in terms requires that every bill shall be read on three several days in each house, unless in case of urgency such reading be dispensed with as provided for: Const., see. 15, art. 4. And it has already been held here that when the constitution says the bill shall be read, it means that it shall be read at length (Weill v. Kenfield, 54 Cal. 111 ) ; that is to say, it shall be read at length in its then condition. The constitution makes express recognition of the fact that a bill may be amended in either house, but does not provide for a reading thereof in each house on three several days after amendment. “Any bill may originate in either house, but may be amended or rejected by the other”: Sec. 16, art. 4, supra. If petitioners’ claim be well founded, a bill which originated in the assembly, for example, and was there, properly read on three several days and regularly passed and sent to the senate, should in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.