Each House shall have power to determine the rules of proceeding.
§ 49. Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings.
§ 50. The sessions of each House and the Committee of the whole shall be open.
§ 51. Neither House shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.
§ 53. The Legislative Assembly shall meet at the seat of government at twelve o'clock noon on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January of the year following the election of the members.
Now, what if the legislature should be an hour or a day late in meeting? What if either house should adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other; what if it failed in any other respect toe observe the stated procedure, does that render void an act that is passed by the unanimous vote of each house and approved by the governor? Surely all such rules of procedure, whether in the constitution or out of it are addressed to the members, who may change and vary, or, by general consent, disregard such rules. The rule that all bills shall be printed and a copy laid on the table of each member gives him full opportunity to read and understand each bill regardless of its title. The people, their lawmakers and their procedure has greatly improved since 1889 when they swallowed the constitution in bulk as the whale swallowed Jonah, and it well behooves courts to keep up with the march of time and to be ever ready to give a good reason for their decisions. Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of a rule ceases, so does the rule itself.
Order reversed.
Birdzell, J. (Speaking for the majority of the court). Immediately after the submission of this case, the members of the court, recognizing the practical necessity for an early decision, carefully considered the questions involved and within a few days after the arguments, a tentative opinion was prepared by the writer of this opinion. The controlling’ principles therein stated were promptly agreed to by a majority of the judges. Later, Mr. Chief Justice Grace and Mr. Justice Robinson, filed opinions upholding the constitutionality of the act in question. Under § 89 of the constitution as amended and under the rule of decision in such cases announced by this court in Daly v. Beery 45 N. D. 287, 187 N. W. 104, the votes of the two members control the decision. The majority nevertheless regards it as a duty to set forth the reasons why the act should be held unconstitutional and to add appropriate comments upon what they regard
