Supreme Court of Arkansas
31 Ark. 701
State of Arkansas v. Little Rock, Mississippi River and Texas Railway Company
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court
July, 1868, and, two days thereafter, each house, in pursuance of a November, 1868; and pursuant to said resolution of adjournment, did concurrent resolution, adjourned to meet on the third Tuesday in meet on that day, and continued in session until the 10th day of April, 1869, when both houses adjourned sine die. Held:
First—That, there being no special provision in the act as to when it should take effect, it did not become operative, or take effect as a law, for any purpose, until "ninety days from the expiration of the session at which it was passed" (Art. 5, sec. 22, Const. of 1868); that the session of the General Assembly that passed the act, expired on the 10th day of April, 1869, when both houses adjourned sine die; and that the act did not take effect until ninety days from that date.
Second—That the election held on the 3d day of November, 1868, under the provisions of said act, to take the sense of the people on the question of loaning the credit of the State as therein provided, was held before said act, or an provision of it, was in force, and was a nullity.
Third—That the "consent of the people, expressed at the ballot-box," required, by sec. 6 of Art. x of the Constitution, to authorize the loan of the credit of the State, as in said act provided, not having
been obtained at an election held for that purpose in pursuance of law, the bonds of the State issued in pursuance of said act were issued without authority of law, and in contravention of the provision of the Constitution, and created no liability on the part of the State, and are void in the hands of innocent holders.A legislative enactment must be complete in all its parts. It cannot take effect for one purpose, and not for another.
3. : Journals of the Senate and House of Representatives.
Effect of as evidence that an act was not passed in the manner required by the Constitution, discussed, but nothing decided.
4. ESTOPPEL:
There can arise no estoppel to deny the existence of a law.
5. AMENDMENT:
A void enactment cannot be validated by subsequent amendments.
APPEAL from Pulaski Circuit Court.
Hon. J. W. MARTIN, Circuit Judge.
Henderson, Attorney General, for the State.
C. W. Huntington, for appellee.
B. C. Brown, for bondholders.
[Opinion of the court by Justice DAVID WALKER.]
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse