copies in French, and 1,000 in Portuguese, and voting in the affirmative are found the names of the present United States district judge, Blodgett, and Hon. William H. Underwood, two lawyers of conceded profound legal knowledge and highest integrity. (See Senate journal 1859, page 27.)

It would be too tedious to detail at length every instance of like action, by both houses of the General Assembly. Suffice it to say, that both houses of every successive General Assembly, up to the time of the adoption of the constitution of 1870, uniformly and invariably directed a greater or smaller number of copies of the Governor's message to be printed in other than the English language.

In connection herewith, however, we would call attention to the action of members of the constitutional conventions of 1847 and 1870. It appears upon an examination of the journals of the two conventions, that John Dement, William R. Archer and Robert J. Cross, were members of both conventions. The journal and debates of the convention of 1870 show that the section under consideration was adopted without debate, and with the single remark from Joseph Medill of Cook county, "that section is copied from the present constitution." (Constitutional debates, page 1,805.

It is not to be presumed that the men who sat in both conventions were ignorant of the construction the legislative assembly had placed upon this section, and had it been intended not to admit of further like construction, a provision to that effect would have been inserted or called for. Of the members of the constitutional convention of 1847, four were afterwards members of the legislative assembly and recorded their votes in favor of printing copies of the Governor's message in other than the English language, namely: D. J. Pinckney and W. W. Roman in the House in 1857; L. E. Worcester in the Senate in 1857; and Cyrus Edwards in the House in 1861. Of the members of the constitutional convention of 1870, five (5) had been members of the General Assembly, and had recorded their votes in favor of printing copies of the Governor's message in other than the English language, namely: W. H. Underwood, L. S. Church, Silas L. Bryan, E. M. Haines and John Scholfield.

It is difficult to conceive of more marked instances of construction than are here reported, and in our opinion ought to settle the question. In the constitutional convention of 1870, the yeas upon printing copies of the constitution and address in German and other languages, were 56, and the nays were 2. Among the yeas are found the names of Underwood, Medill, Browning, Hay, Church, Dement and Scholfield.

Such was the construction placed upon the clause in question by the framers themselves of the constitution and by successive General Assemblies. The convention of 1870 did not depart from the construction placed upon it by us of the minority.

By reference to the journal of the constitutional convention of 1870, page 227, it can be ascertained that that convention ordered 10,000 copies of the constitution of 1870, and the accompanying address, printed in the German language, 5,000 in the French and other languages, for distribution. And the Senate of this session, after full discussion, has ordered the printing of copies of the message in foreign languages.

It will not be considered improper for us to remark, in passing, had the framers of the constitution of 1870 intended to inhibit the printing

of copies of executive proceedings, to be distributed for information, they, knowing what had been the practical construction of the section of the constitution of 1848 by so many successive General Assemblies, would have been the more likely to have added a restrictive clause of the nature following: "Nor shall copies thereof be printed or published at the public expense in any other language," than to have adopted the section as it now stands, upon the single remark of Mr. Medill, namely: "That section is copied from present constitution."

It would seem that further remark upon this subject was unnecessary, so uniform has been the action of two constitutional conventions and numerous legislative assemblies upon this subject, thereby settling, according to well defined legal rules of construction, the meaning of the section of the constitution under consideration.

But we do not feel disposed to discuss the subject without calling attention to some acknowledged authorities, which conclusively sustain the opinions entertained by us.

This is one of the class of cases where the law interposes the means of ascertaining the proper construction to be placed upon the subject in question. The action of prior legislative assemblies is not of itself absolutely binding upon its successors, but such action is most frequently a means of ascertaining the rights of subsequent assemblies. In the absence of judicial decision upon the precise point in question, we are compelled, in order to act intelligently, to resort to the rules which the law defines, should be applied, in order to determine what is the proper construction.

Cooley, in his "Constitutional Limitations," a work of conceded authority, says: "Where there has been a practical construction which has been acquiesced in for a considerable period, considerations in favor of adhering to this construction sometimes present themselves to the courts, with a plausibility and force which is not easy to resist. Indeed, where a particular construction has been generally accepted as correct, and especially when this has occurred contemporaneously with the adoption of the constitution, and by those who had the opportunity to understand the intention of the instrument, it is not to be denied that a strong presumption exists that the construction rightly interprets the intention." (Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, page 67.)

Now, certainly, if the law is to govern in this case, there can be no further room for argument, for the constitutional conventions both did the very same thing contended by us this General Assembly has the power to do, and frequent legislative assemblies having done the same thing, the law of contemporaneous construction rightly interpreting the intention, leaves the intent of the framers of the constitution no longer a question, but determines that the section of the constitution under consideration did not extend to and include copies of the proceedings printed and distributed for information.

The constitutional convention of 1870 was most unquestionably familiar with the construction which had been so frequently and uninterruptedly placed upon this clause in the constitution by the legislative assembly, and which was the same construction contended for by us here, and it seems to us that it cannot be successfully denied that, knowing that construction, had it designed to change the existing condition of things, and inhibit further and like construction, it would have taken proper steps to prevent the recurrence of like practices under that construction, instead of re-adopting the clause, and thereby affirming and approving the construction that had been so uniformly given it.

Chief Justice Marshall, in the case Cohens vs. Virginia, 6 Wheaton 418, a case involving a like point, says: "Great weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition."

The Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in Rogers vs. Goodwin, 2 Mass., 478, say "we cannot shake a principle which, in practice, has so long and so extensively prevailed. If the practice originated in error, yet the error is now so common that it must have the force of law. The legal ground upon which this provision is now supported is, that long and continued usage furnishes a contemporaneous construction, which must prevail over a mere technical import of the words."

In the case of Brigham vs. Miller, 17 Ohio, 446, the Supreme Court hold, that under the constitution, in their opinion, the Legislature had not the power to grant divorces, but having exercised the power for a long time, they are constrained to recognize its power so to do, upon the principle of contemporaneous construction.

The Supreme Court of Illinois have passed upon a case involving a like principle with the subject under consideration.

In Johnson vs. Joliet and Chicago Railroad Company, 23 Illinois, 207, the question was, whether railroad corporations could be created by special law, without a special declaration, by way of preamble, that the object to be accomplished could not.be attained by general law. The court say: "It is now too late to make this objection, since by the action of the General Assembly, under this clause, special acts have been so long the order of the day."

*

So do we say in this case, that it is too late to make this objection, since by the action of the General Assembly, notwithstanding this clause of the constitution, printing of copies of the Governor's message has been so long the order of the day, that, by long continued and frequent construction, the said clause of the constitution has no application to copies of the message distributed for information, but applies to the original documents.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois, above cited, was made in the year 1859, and the special acts, by the court alluded to, under the constitution of 1848, which had been "so long the order of the day," were passed during the course of eleven years. The action of the General Assembly, in regard to printing copies of the Governor's message in other than the English language, extended from 1857 to 1869, inclusive, a period of thirteen years. Surely, if the action of the General Assembly for eleven years settles, according to judicial decision, a question of constitutional construction, its action for thirteen years ought to settle a like question in the minds of the members of this General Assembly.

The Supreme Court of the United States have had frequent occasions to consider this question. In Stewart vs. Laird, 1st Cranch, 299, decided in 1803, that court sustained the authority of its members to sit as circuit judges, on the ground of a practical construction, commencing with the organization of the government. So here; we contend for the authority of the members of the House to order copies of the Governor's message to be printed in the German and other languages, on the ground of a practical construction, commencing with the organization of the government, to-wit: the constitutional convention.

In the case last cited, the Supreme Court say further: "It is sufficient to observe that practice and acquiescence under it for a period of several years, affords an irresistable answer, and has indeed fixed the construction. It is a contemporary construction, of the

*

**

most forcible nature. This practical exposition is too strong and obstinate to be shaken or controlled, of course the question is at rest, and ought not now to be disturbed." (Further on this point see Union Insurance Co. vs. Hoge, 21 How, 66, Edwards, lessee, vs. Darby, 12 Wheaton, 210.)

We fail to perceive the force of the argument, that it was intended by the framers of the constitution, that the people of this State should be under the necessity of acquiring a knowledge of the English language, if they desired to be informed respecting public affairs. We take it, the members of the constitutional convention did not intend to put a compulsory education act in the belly of the constitution.

But more than all this, the constitution does not inhibit the printing of copies of the Governor's message in other than the English language, even according to its letter. The word printing, in any of its moods or tenses, is not used. The resolution it is proposed to rescind simply directs that copies of the Governor's message be printed in the German and other languages, and it is the recommendation of the majority that that resolution be rescinded because it is unconstitutional; and yet the constitution is silent on the subject of printing. We apprehend the majority of the committee mean to supply the word that is lost. Regarding the practical question involved in the resolution rescinding the former action of this House, we are informed by the State printer that the order has been given for the printing to be done under the resolution proposed to be rescinded, and that the copies are hourly expected from the printer. All liability that can be, under the resolution it is proposed to rescind, has already been incurred. We cannot perceive any practical reason for the proposed recission. We would remind the advocates of the rescinding resolution, that in framing and considering bills to be acted upon by the House, they carefully avoid the use of such familiar terms as habeas corpus, ne exeat, quo warranto, mandamus, and JOHN M. ROUNTREE, T. J. GOLDEN.

the like.

Mr. Rountree moved that 1,000 copies each of the reports of the judiciary committee be printed, and the subject matter made the special order for next Thursday.

On motion of Mr. Dunham,

So much of the motion of Mr. Rountree as referred to the printing was laid on the table, yeas 100, nays 27-the yeas and nays being demanded by five members.

Those voting in the affirmative are:

Messrs. Alexander of Crawford, Armstrong of LaSalle, Bishop of Edgar, Bishop of McHenry, Blakely, Bocock, Bradwell, Branson, Bryant, Bullard, Casey, Cassedy, Carpenter, Chambers, Condon, Connolly, Cronkrite, Cross, Darnell, Davis, Dement, Dewey, Dolan, Dolton, Dresser, Dunham, Efner, Flanders, Forth, Graham, Granger, Grant, Gridley, Halpin, Harvey, Hawes, Hay, Henry, Herrington Herting, Hite of St. Clair, Hoiles, Jaquess, Jackson, James, Jessup, Jones, Kann, Lane of Hancock, Lane of De Witt, Lewis, Lietze, Loomis, Mann, Marsh, Massie, McAdams, McDonald, McGee, McLaughlin, Middlecoff, Moore of Marshall, Moore of Adams, Moose, Morrison, Moffitt, Neville, Newton, Oberly, Orendorff, Penfield, Plowman, Pollock, Ramey, Rankin, Rice, Rogers, Savage, Scanlan, Shaw, Sheridan, Shumway, Smith, Snow, Stewart of Winnebago, Stewart of McLean, Streetor, Stroud, Sylvester, Tag. gart, Thomas, Thornton, Virden, Warner, Wayman, Webber, Webster, Weinheimer, Wicker, Wy

more-100.

Those voting in the negative are:

Messrs. Alexander of Montgomery, Armstrong of Grundy, Booth, Collins, Cullerton, Ferrier, Golden, Hart, Hopkins, Inscore, Oakwood, Oleson, Peltzer, Pinnell, Race, Ray, Rountree, Senne, Sherman, Swan, Truitt, Walker, Washburn, Westfall, Wick, Wood, Mr. Speaker-27.

So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The question being upon making the subject matter of the reports the special order for next Thursday, it was not agreed to.

The question being upon the amendment to the resolution as recommended by the judiciary committee,

Mr. Moore of Adams moved the previous question.

Mr. Hay moved to adjourn; which was not agreed to.

The question being, "Shall the main question be now put ?" it was agreed to.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment to the resolutien, it was agreed to.

The question recurring on the adoption of the resolution as amended, it was decided in the affirmative, yeas 88, nays 33-the yeas and nays being demanded by five members.

Those voting in the affirmative are:

Messrs. Alexander of Crawford, Armstrong of LaSalle, Bishop of McHenry, Blakely, Bocock, Booth, Bradwell, Bryant, Bullard, Casey, Cassedy, Carpenter, Chambers, Collins, Condon, Connolly, Cross, Davis, Dement, Dewey, Dolan, Dresser, Dunham, Efner, Flanders, Forth, Granger, Grant, Gridley, Halpin, Hart, Hawes, Hay, Henry, Herrington, Hite of St. Clair, Hoiles, Jaquess, Jessup, Jones, Kann, Lane of DeWitt, Lewis, Lietze, Loomis, Mann, Marsh, Massie, McAdams, McDonald, Moore of Marshall, Moore of Adams, Morrison, Moffit, Oberly, Orendorff, Penfield, Pinnell, Plowman. Pollock, Race, Ramey, Rankin, Ray, Rice, Rogers, Scanlan, Shaw, Sheridan, Shumway, Smith, Snow, Stewart of Winnebago, Stewart of McLean, Streetor, Stroud, Swan, Sylvester, Taggart, Thornton, Truitt, Virden, Warner, Webber, Webster, Wicker, Wymore, Mr. Speaker-88.

Those voting in the negative are:

Messrs. Alexander of Montgomery, Bishop of Edgar, Cullerton, Dolton, Ferrier, Golden, Harvey, Herting, Hollenback, Hopkins, Inscore, Jackson, James, Lane of Hancock, McLaughlin, Middlecoff, Neville, Oakwood, Oleson, Peltzer, Rountree, Savage, Scott, Senne, Sherman, Thomas, Walker, Washburn, Wayman, Weinheimer, Westfall, Wick, Wood-33.

So the resolution, as amended, was adopted.

Mr. Hay, from the committee on judiciary, submitted the following report:

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives :

The judiciary committee, to whom was referred the resolution whereby it was resolved that the Secretary of State cause to be printed 3,000 copies of the Governor's inaugural address in the German language, 2,000 copies in the Danish-Norwegian language, and 1,500 copies in the Swedish language, have had the same under consideration, and have directed that the same be reported back to the House, with a recommendation that said resolution be not adopted.

The report of the committee was concurred in, and the resolution was laid on the table.

On motion of Mr. Ray,

At 12:40 P. M., the House adjourned.

FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 1873.

The House met, pursuant to adjournment.

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Brent.

The clerk proceeded to read the journal of yesterday, when,

On motion of Mr. Loomis,

The further reading of the journal was dispensed with.

Leave of absence was granted to Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Barkley. Mr. Hay, from the committee on judiciary, submitted the following report:

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives :

The judiciary committee, to whom was referred a resolution directing them to inquire into the propriety of abolishing the grand jury in all