xt7w3r0psg73 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7w3r0psg73/data/mets.xml Knott, J. Proctor, (James Proctor), 1830-1911. 1892  books b92-269-32003400 English s.n. ; : [S.l. : Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Address to the people of Kentucky, and opinion of Hon. J. Proctor Knott  : what is the meaning of the words "The final passage of the bill" / by J. Proctor Knott. text Address to the people of Kentucky, and opinion of Hon. J. Proctor Knott  : what is the meaning of the words "The final passage of the bill" / by J. Proctor Knott. 1892 2002 true xt7w3r0psg73 section xt7w3r0psg73 

         ... TO  THE.

           . N. A/r4..
            . OF'.

H1on. J. Proctor Knott.

WHIAT is 'riulE MEANING OF 'PllE Wn)IwI)-


 This page in the original text is blank.



  In order that you may know the facts and circumistances
connected with Ond celatiing to the passage of the Revenue
Bill (commo-uly ealled the AM ClChord Bill), which was re-
cently vetoed oy the krovern-or, w!I d'em. it proper to make
this statement.
  This bill was reporied. to thc, House of Representatives
by the Revisory Commission on the 7th day of January,
  The House, either by its Conimnittee on elvenue and
Taxation, in the committee of the whole or in regular ses-
sion, were engaged in the consideration of this bill until
it finally passed it on the 24th of Aay. On the 27th of
May it was reported to the Senate from the House, given
its first reading and ordered printed in obedlienice to
section 46 of the Constitution. On June the 3d it was


returned to the Senate from the Public Printer, wvas
given its second reading, and in obedience to the re-
quirements of section 46 of the Constitution was referred
to the committee on Revenue and Taxation in the Senate,
and that committee, at two sessions each day, exclusive of
Sundays, en-aged with energy and deliberatioii in the Coll-
sideration of the bill. It was the opinion of the conmmit-
tee, after careful consideration tnd investigation, that the
bill, as it came to the Senate, was materially defective and
contained many very dangerous departures, and they,.
therefore, on the 8th of July reported it back to the Sen-
ate with about one hundred amendmlents, which the com-
mittee believed ought to be adopted. The Senate imme-
diately begun the consideration of the bill and the
committee amendments, and it was found that the pro-
posed amendments were so clearly just and proper that.
nearly, if not quite, every one of them were adopted by a.
very decided majority of the Senate-the opposition con1-
sisting all the way tlhreugh of four, five, to tell out of the
thirty-eight Senators, and on the 14th of-Jalv the vote was
taken in the Senate on the bill as thus amended and re-
sulte(l in its passage by a vote of 20 seas to 6 nays. Thus
amended and passed, the bill was returned to the House
of Representatives that the Senate amendments, might be
concurred in or non-concurred in, as to the House might
seem proper. After the 'House hlad spent several days in
the consideration of the Senate amendments, a few of the
amendments were concurred in, and a large number were
non-concurred in, and the bill and amendments were re-
turned to the Senate on the - day of July. The next
step in order in the due progress of the bill was for the
Senate to either recede from such amendments as the
House had refused to concur in, or to refuse to recede
and ask for a Conference Committee to adjust the differ-
ences between the House and the Senate.


  It will be observed that the House had spenit near five
months and the Senate had spenit about six weeks in the
work upon this bill, at a cost to the State for the time con-
sumed at a conservative estimate, as we believe, of 75,000
  That this bill should be passed in time for the assess-
meiit to l)egin on September 15th was holdinig the Legisla-
ture in session at a cost of about 1,000 per day.
  From four to six of the Senators who had opposed this
bill throughout from the adoption of the Senate amend-
meiits now undertook to prevent any action by the Senate,
and by delav tactics succeeded for that daY, notwithstand-
ing there were seventeen members of the Senate out of
the twenty-one or twenty-two in attendance that were
anxious to speedily conclude the work on this bill and
  Again, wvlen the Senate met on the niext day, time four or
five Senators resumned their (ielay tactics, but in this en-
gagement the seveniteeni Senlators succeeded, niotwitlhstand-
ing the extreme tactics resorted to by the four or five, and
refused to recede andl amed, by resol utioim, a conference
cornmitttee on the lart of the Senate aid asked the House
to appoint a like committee.
  The evident purpose of the minority was either to (lefeat
the passage of the bill or eventually procuire the appoint-
ment of a conference committee in the Senate that would
be opposed to certain important amendments that a very
large. mnajority of the members of tle Senate had voted for
and some of which will be noticed later on in this state-
me it.
  It is a well settled proposition in parliamentary law that
a conference committee must be appointed that will voice
the views of the majority of the body from wvhich they are
  Mr. Cushing, in his "Law and Practice of Legislative
Assemblies," says: "A committee of conference is not a


heterogeneous body, acting as one committee, but two com-
mittees, each of which acts by a majority. Every mem-
ber of each committee is to represent the prevailing Iparty
of the house to which lie belongs on the disagreeing vote
in question."
  There can not be found a respectable authority to the
  The bill, as it camne from the Revisorv Comminssioit, and
as it passed the House, excepted railroads, fire, life and ac-
cident insurance companies and foreign building ,and loan
associations from paying a tax upon their franchise, as
other corporations were required to pay.  Tlle Senate
adopted an amendlment compelling these to pay a tax on
their franchise just the same as other corJ)orations. Gen.
B. A. I)uke, an attorney for the L. kt N. R.. li., stated that
this chan-re made by the Senate would increase the taxes
payabl)le by that railroad over 300,000 annually, and it is
believed that this amendment was, and has been, the
basis of the most formidable opposition made to this bill
from the time the Senate adopted that amendment.
  This anmendument of the Senate imposes a tax on all
railroad (including street railway) franchises which will be,
beyond doubt, the moet fruitful source of franchise taxes.
W.re submit to You whether or not the 'Senate did right in
  The bill, as it wvas framed by the Revisory Commission,
and as it passed the House placed in the hands of.the
Railroad Commission, not merely the assessment of the
tangible property of railroad corporations, but also the
franchises of all the corporations of the State. It was be-
lieved that the power of assessing all the corporations of
the State should not be concentrated in the hands of one
authority. The Railroad Commissioners are the appointees
of the Governor. In the future these Commissioners are,
under the Constitution, to be elected by the people. The


result would be to combine all the corporate wealth and
power of the Commonwealth to control the election of the
Railroad Commissioners.  For this reason the Senate
amendments left to the Commission the assessment of only
the tangible property of railroad corporations. as is now
provided by law. In the United States there are twenty-
nine States which have Railroad Commissions, and in no
one of them is the Commission given power or authority
over any thing other than railroads and railroad property.
  The Commonwealth now has a well-settled system of law
governing the taxation of railroads. The enforcement of
this law was resisted in the courts and was litigated by the
railroad corporations from the Franklin Circuit Court to
Supreme Court of the Ulnited States. After years of time
and the expenditure of many thousands of dollars by the
Commonwealth the validity of the law was settled in the
Federal Supreme Ceurt. This law brought annually a
large increase of revenue to the State from the railroads.
  The next attempt made to get rid of this law was made
at the legislative session of 1887-'S, when the "Thomuas
Bill" was passed in the House but failed in the Senate,
abolishin g the Railroad Commission. 'Nothing further was
done toward this end until, in the Revenue and Taxation
Bill, as it came fromn the Revisory Commission and as it
passed the House, it was provided that railroads should be
valued for taxation at the price they would bring at a vol-
untarv sale. It will be remembered that the existing law
provides that railroads shall be valued for taxation at what
they are worth as carriers of freight and passengers, and,
under this law, the valuations made are considerably higher
than the original cost of the railways.
  Such a thing as a voluntary sale of a railroad never oc-
curred in Kentuckv. When railroads are sold at all it is by
foreclosure proceedings. The control of railways frequently
changes by a change in the ownership of the stock of the cor-


porations owning them. But this is something very differ-
ent from a sale of the railway itself.
  It was believed that the law governing the assessment
of railway property, which had been settled after so long
a struggle, which brought such a large increase of revenue
and which the people did not ask should be repealed, should
remain unchanged; and, therefore, the Senate amend-
ments readopted the existing law upoti that subject. A
change in this system can bring only confusion, renewed
litigation, loss to the State and benefit to the railway cor-
  These were the more important changes made in the bill
by the Senate.
  The report of the conference committee recommended
substantially the adoption of the Senate amendments.
  The veto message of the Governor raises first the ques-
tion as to whether this bill was passed by the General
Assembly in accordance with the requirements of the Con-
  The bill passed the Hcuse, with an emergency section,
by a vote of 67 to 0, and passed the Senate with the amend-
ments by a vote of 20 to 6. None of the amendments pro-
posed by the Senate, nor by the report of the Conference
Committee, related to the emergency section.  The con-
ference report was adopted in the Senate by a vote of 16 to
10, and was adopted in the House by a vote of 41 to 31.
  The Governor, to support his objection as to the manner
of passing the bill by the General Assembly, quotes the
last paragraph of section 46 and section 55 of the Consti-
  The last paragraph of section 46 reads thus "No bill
shall become a law unless, on its final passage, it receives
the votes of at least two-fifths of the members elected to
each House, and a majority of the members voting, the
vote to be taken by yeas and nays, and entered in the jour-


nal, provided any act or resolution for the appropriation
of money or the creation of debt shall, on its final pas-
sage, receive the votes of a majority of all the members
elected to each House."
   Section 55 of the Constitution provides that "no act, ex-
cept general appropriation bills, shall become a law until
ninety days after the adjournment of the session at which
it was passed, except in cases of emergency, when, by the
concurrence of a majority of the members elected to each
House of the General Assembly, by a Yea and nay vote
entered on their journals, an act may become a law when
approved by the Governor. But the reasons for the emer-
gency that justifies this action must be set out at length in
the journals of each House."
  It will be seen that section 46 relates to the passage of
bills, and section 53 relates only to the time when acts
shall take effect. The latter section fixing the time when
all bills shall take effect, but empowering the Geneyal As-
seninly to make them take effect earlier by the concurrence
of a majority of the members elected to each House.
  There is nothing il section 55 that requires the emerg-
ency clause to be a part of the bill; it may as well be in
the form of a separate resolution adopted by the required
number of votes. The gist of the section is, that to make
a bill take effect upon the approval of the Governor a ma-
jority of the mnembers elected to each House shall signify
their intention to that effect by a yea and nay vote. As a
majority of the members-elect of each House voted for the
emergency section of the bill, and as that section was not
amended in either House, nor by the conference report,
it can not be denied that the two Houses concurred in ex-
pressing the legislative intention that the Revenue Law
should take effect upon the approval of the Gov-ernor.
  It will be observed that this section does not require, in
order to make bills take effect on the approval of the Gov-


ernor, that the concurrence of the majority of the members-
elect to each House should be had on the vote on the final
passage. It seems quite manifest to us that such concur-
rence may be had within the meaning of section 55, as it
was in this case, or a day or a week later, by a distinct
order or resolution.  The Governor, however, evidently
labors under the misapprehension that the Constitution
requires this concurrence as to the time the act shall take
effect to be manifested by the vote on the final passage of
the bill.
  The only section of the Constitution that contains any
thing as to the number of votes required to pass a bill is
section 46, and this is the only section of the Constitution
in which the words "on its final passage" occur, and it pro-
vides that no bill shall become a law unless "on its final
passage" it receives the votes of at least two-fifths of the
members elected to each house, and a majority of the mem-
bers voting, the vote to be taken by yeas and nays and
entered on the journal, &c.
  The first question that here occurs is: What is the final
passage of a bill within the meaning of this section of the
Constitution WVe think it clear that it is, as to each house,
the vote upon the bill as an entirety, and not a vote upon
a conference report, or upon an amendment.
  But, for argument's sake, it may be conceded that the
vote on the amendments, or on the conference report, was
a vote on the final passage. Yet, in that state of case, as
there was not in any of the amendments, or in the con-
ference report, any thing that related to the matter of
emergency1, nor to the time when the act should take effect,.
it required only a vote of two-fifths of the members elect.
of each house to adopt the conference committee's report,
and as 16 is two-fifths of the membership of the Senate,
and as 41 is two-fifths of the membership of the House,
the bill was regularly passed under the most extreme con-
struction that can be given to the Constitution.


  But it is a well settled legal proposition that the consti-
tutional provisions concerning the final passage of bills do
not relate to, nor govern votes upon, nor proceedings with,
reference to amendments or conference reports.
  In Sutherland on Statutory Construction, a standard le-
gal work cited by the Kentucky Court of Appeals and other
courts of last resort, the most recent work onl the subject
with which it deals, the law is thus stated in sections 48
and 49: "If the Constitution, however, requires a certain
proceeding in the process of legislation to be entered in the
journal, the entry is a condition oIn which the validity of
the act will depend. The vital fact that on the final pas-
sage of a bill the required number of votes are given in
its favor is extensively directed by Constitutions to be en-
tered on the journals. Under the operation of these pro-
visions there is no presumption that the required vote was
given if the journal is silent. It must affirmatively appear
by the journals that this constitutional requirement has
been complied with.
  Nor does concurrence by one House in amendments
made by the other require the yeas and nays, aind their
entrv on the journal, under the provisions for these things
on the final passage of bills."
  In McCulloch v. Thle State, 11 Ind. Reports, page 434,
there was determined the validity of an important act,
passed by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana.
The Constitution of that State provides that no bill shall
become a law unless it receives the votes of a majority of
the members elected to each House, and the yeas and nays
must be entered on the journal. In that case the court
held: "But it is argued that the bill having been amended
in the H-ouse-having passed that body-and being re-
turned to the Senate, where it originated, should, with the
amendments, have been passed in the Senate by a consti-


tutional majority; that it was not enough that the amend-
ments were simply concurred in. In answer to this it
might be said that, for aught that appears in the journal,
the bill may have so passed the Senate. But suppose the
journal in reference to the point thus made shows all that
waS done, still the proceeding would, in our opinions be un-
objectionable, because the bill, before it was sent to the
House, had passed the Senate by a majority of all the
members elected to that body, and it can not be assumed
that the amendments of the House converted the original
into a new bill. Indeed such construction might result in
the necessity of the whole series of readings being com-
menced anew every time an amendment is made. We in-
cline to the opinion that in this instance the mnere concur-
rence in the amendments was sufficient without any
further proceeding by tile Senate.
  "It is true where journals, on their face, show that a bill,
oln its final passage, did not receive in its favor the votes of
a majority, as prescribed bw the Constitution, the whole
legislative proceeding would be a nullity, because, if the
requisite number do not vote in the affirmative, upon such
final passage there is a defect of power and no bill so
passed can have the force of a law." The court then cites a
number of cases to sustain this last Proposition and con-
cludes as follows, on page 435: "These decisions, in our
opinion, announce a proper exposition of the law. For
the purpose indicated, courts may resort to the journals.
Still those cases are not applicable to the ease at bar, be-
cause the bill in qnestion passed both houses by the
requisite vote."  Thus it will be seen that in this case the
court clearly decided that the vote on the final passage of
the bill was had when each house voted on the bill as an
entirety and before amendment by the other house.
  In the case of Hull v. Miller, 4 Nebraska, 505-6, the
following is the language of the court, in sustaining a leg-


islative act which was assailed: "It is disclosed that the
bill for the act in question originated in the Senate where
it was passed by the constitutional mojority, the yeas and
nays being duly called and entered on the journal. In the
House the bill was amended and there duly passed. Upon
its return to the Senate all that the journal discloses with re-
spect to itis that the amnendments of the House were adopted,
but by what majority or in what manner the vote was
taken the journal of the Senate is silent. It is contended
by counsel for plaintiff in error that the Constitution re-
quired the observance of the saime formalities in the vote
by which the amendmients of the House were concurred
in as was required on the finial passage of the bill before it
left the Senate, anld that the journal of that body should
show an observance of this requiremnent. As to the vote
on the final passage of the bill in either house the position
of counsel is clearly correct.
    Section 11, art. .2. of the Constitution of 1837 declares
that, 'on the passage of overv bill in either house the vote
shall be taken bv yeas and nays anld entered o1n the jour-
.al, and no law shall be pacssed in either house without the
concurrence of a majority of all the members elected
thereto.' This provision is most clearly mandatory, and
its non-observance in the passage of any bill will render
the act absolutely void.                           
  "But it will be observed that the provision of the Consti-
tution above quoted refers only to the vote on the passage
of bills."
  The Constitution of Nebraska required that bills and all
amendments thereto should be printed "before the vote is
taken on the final passage." In the case of State vs.
Liedtke, 9 Nebraska, page 494, the Supreme Court of that
State use, in construing the words "final passage," this
  "The words 'final passage,' as applied to matters of legis-


lation, were well known to the framers of the Constitution,
and presumably so to the people who adopted it. And it
is a part of the legislative and political history of the
country that a large per cent. of the most important legis-
lation of the States, as well as of the National government,
consist of measures proposed as amendments to bills by
committees of conference after such bills have gone
through all the stages of legislation in the two houses, and
only lack concurrence, often on trivial and unimportant
points. The object of the constitutional provision is to in-
sure more deliberate action, and to prevent haste in the
maturing and passage of bills. This is a commendable
object and one which should be upheld so far as possible
by a sound construction of the Constitution.
  "All of this was well known to the framers of the Con-
stitution, and hence the section under conisideration does
not require the printing of amendments after the bill has
been pact upon its final passage. Any other line of construc-
tion, if followed in its necessary sequence, would lead to a
condition of repeated printings and readings on different
days, which would tend to becloud rather than enlighten
the legislator, and would render it impossible to perform
the necessary legislation within the forty days to which
another section of the Constitution limits each session of
the Legislature."
  Either all mandatory constitutional requirements as to
bills, or the passage of bills, apply to amendments, or none
of them apply to amendments. Requirements that bills
shall be read on three several days are, when the readings
can be dispensed with only by a yea and nay vote entered
on the journal, held to be not directory, but mandatory.
Sutherland on Statutory Construction, section 45. So that
it becomes material to inquire whether such requirements
as to the reading of bills apply to amendments.


  In Illinois the constitutional requirement as to the read-
ing of bills oln three several days is held to be mnandatory.
In the People v. Wallace, 70 Illinois Rep., page 681, the
Supreme Court of that State said: "It is also objected that
the 10th section of the tact was not constitutionallv adlopted,
because it was engrafted as an amendmnent whilst the bill
was being considered, and was not read on three several
days in the House adopting it as an anmeen(lnent. AWe are
clearly of opinion that the requirement does not al)y)l to
an amendmlent, and the objection call not prevail."
  The same ruling was made in State v. Leidtke, 9 Ne-
braska, 462; Miller v. The State, 3 Ohio State, 475; and
State v. Phrtt, 2 So. Car., 150. And the law is so declared
to be in Sutherland on Statutory Construction, section 49;
and in Cooley onl Constitutional L-imitations.
  So that it will be seen that the line is clearly drawn in
the judicial decisions and in the legal text-books between
bills upon the one lhand and aamelldmenlts OD the other;
and the holding is, w-ithouu exception, that constitutional
requirements as to the former have no application to the
  The Governor in his message expresses grave and intense
apprehension as to the supposititious evil consequences that
will result to the Commonwealth alnd] its people from the
construction of the Constitution, that the courts and legal
text-books, as above shown, sayv is the true construction.
  His Excellency should not have forgotten tharlt that same
construction has obtained in Kentucky for almost half a
  Section 40 of the Constitution of 1849 is in these words:
"The General Assemblv shall have no power to pass any
act or resolution for the appropriation of any mioney, or
the creation of any debt, exceeding the sum of one hun-
dred dollars at any one time, unless the same, off its final
passage, shall be voted for by a majority of all the members


then elected to each branch of the General Assembly, and
the yeas and nays thereon entered on the journal."
  It will be observed that as to bills appropriating money,
or creating a debt, to an amount greater than one hundred
dollars, the requirements of the Constitution of 1849 are
in all respects identical with the requirements of the pres-
ent Constitution, with reference to all bills, except as to
the number of votes. In other words, the Present Consti-
tution applies to all bills passed by the General Assembly,
the same requirements in the matter of legislative proced-
ure that the Conistitution of 1849 applied only to appro-
priation bills for more than one hurdred dollars.
  At the first session of the General Assembly under the
Constitution of 1849, the bill appropriating money for the
Kentucky Institution for the Blind passed the House De-
cember 23, 1851, by a yea and nay vote of a majority of
all the members elect (House Journal, page 345). This
bill passed the Senate, with amendments, by a yea and
nay vote of a majority of all the members elect, on January
1, 1852. The House Journal of that session (page 434)
shows what was done upon the return to the House of the
bill, with the Senate amendments. " The amendments
proposed by the Senate to the bill from the House of Rep-
resentatives, entitled 'An act for the Education of the
Blind,' were taken up and concurred in."
  It would be useless here to cite from the Journals of the
two Houses all the many instances in which, under the
Constitution of 1849, amendments to bills appropriating
more than 100 were concurred in by the House, other than
the one proposing them, or in which conference reports with
reference to such bills were adopted, without a call of the
yeas and nays, and the entry thereof on ihe Journals.
Suffice it to say that such was the legislative procedure at
every session of the General Assembly, down. to and in-
cloiding the session of 1889-'90. A notable instance is

I 5

that of the bill appropriating money for the Eddyvill&
Penitentiary at the session of 1887-'8. The bill passed
the Senate March    30, 1888, appropriating 100,000.
(Senate Journal, page 1136). It passed the House April
24, 1888, with several important amendments, one increas-
ing the appropriation to 200,000 (House Journal, page-
1737). On April 26, 1888, the Senate concurred in those
amendments, without a calling of the yeas and nays, or-
their entry on the journal. (Senate Journal, 157:3.)
  So that the fact is that from the time of the adoption of-
the Constitution of 1849 every Lieutenant-Governor who
has presided in the Senate, every Speaker of the House of-
Representatives, every Governor of the Common wealth, ex-
cept the present Chief Executive, has construed and decided
the words, "the final passage," as used in the C.,nstitution
with reference to a bill to be inapplicable to amend--
ments and to reports of conference committees. And that
construction has beers followed by every department of the
government of the Commonwealth, except the head of the
present Executive department.
  This usage and contemporaneous construction of the
constitutional provision in question would be entitled to
controlling weight if there were any doubt involved.
  "A contemporaneous construction is that which it re-
ceives soon after its enactment. This, after the lapse of
time, without change of that construction by legislation or
judicial decision, has been declared to be generally the
best construction. It gives the sense of the community as
to the terms made use of by the Legislature. If there is
ambiguity in the language the understanding of the appli-
cation of it when the statute first goes into operation, sanc-
tioned by long acquiescence on the part of the Legislature
and judicial tribunals, is the strongest evidence that it
has been rightly explained in practice. A construction


under such circumstances becomes established law."
Sutherland on Statutory Construction, section 307.
  "The uniform legislative interpretation of doubtful con-
stitutional provisions, running through many years, and a
similar construction of statutes, has great weight."  Suth-
erland on Statutorv Construction, 311.
  If it were true, as claimed by the Governor, that'every
amendment makes a new bill. and that the constitutional
requirement as to the entry upon the journal of the yeas
and nays upon the passage of bills applies to amendments,
then, obviously, the constitutional requiremerts in refer-
ence to bills that they shall be referred to, and reported
from, a committee; that they shall be printed, and that
they shall be read on three several days, are also applicable
to all amendments. Such a construteion swould lead to in-
terminable confusion. and would inevitably lead to a total
blockading of all legislation. No one acquainted with
parliamentary procedure and practice will doubt that, under
such a construction of the Constitution, aily two meii hav-
ing a fair knowledge of parliamentary practice and meth-
ods could, within the limits of a sixty days' -session, if they
so desired, prevent the passage of any bill whatever. Such
a constructi on would entail upon the people incalculable
expense in the conduct of legislative proceedings without,
possibly, affording them any of the benefits desired and
derived from legislation. It is believed that no fair-
minded person can entertain the thought that the framers
of the Constitution, or the people, when they adopted it,
contemplated or intended that the Constitution should be
so construed, or that such a result should follow from its
operation. The Governor's construction of the Constitu-
tion leads inevitably to the destruction of the primary ob-
ject for which the people adopted the Constitution and
established their government.


   The next objection urged by the Governor to the bill is
to section 8, article 3, of the bill, which is as follows:
  "Article 3, section 8. The property of anll corporations, ex-
cept where herein differently provided, shall be assessed in
the namle of the corporation in the same mannier as that
of a natu'r al person, except that when legally called on the
chief officer shall report a full statement of the property
of such corporation for taxation, amid for a failure shall be
subject to the penalties in this article provided, and so long
as said corporation pays the taxes on all its p)roperty of
every kind, the individual stockholders shall not be re-
quired to list their shares in said corporation."
  Sections 8 and 9 of article 4 of chapter 92. of the Gen-
eral Statutes (the present revenue law), are in these words:
  " 8. That the individual stockholders of the companies
which are, by this article, required to report and pay tax
upon the value of their property shall not be required to
list their shares in such coml)anies for taxation."
  " 9. The property of all corporations, except where
herein differently provided, shall be assessed iII the name
of the corporation in the same manner as that of a natural
person except that, when legally called on, the chief officer
shall report a full statement of the property of such cor-
poration for taxation, and for a failure shall be subject to
the penalties in this article provided."
  It will be seen that the vetoed revenue bill simply com-
bined into one section these two sections which are now
the law, without changing their legal effect in any partic-
ular whatever. So that what the Governor, in his message,
denominates "a startling proposition" is now the law of the
land, has been so for years and will remain so till a differ-
ent law on the subject is e'iacted.
  Under the Constitution, if all the property