Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/446

 420 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Oyouion of the Court. 09 U. The defendant in error was permitted, over the obiection of the paintiffs in error, to prove that the journals of the two houses showed that the requisite number of members were, in point of fact, present. TMs the Court of Appeals held to be sufSeient to show that the statute was validly enacted. The first five esignments of error in this court. simply allege in various forms that the Court of Appeals erred n its dec,on of the cause. These assignments may he s,mm,,rily overruled upon the plain ground teat they present no Federal quintion. It must not, however, be traderstood that we intknate that any form of assignment would have given th court the au- thority to review the determination of the hihest court of a State of the proper method of proving the existence of its own laws. Vm o! $ou/ Oawa v. Pes, 94 U.S. 260; Co. v. George, 98 U.S. 359; Post v. pervsors, 105 U S. 667; I re Dncaa, 139 U.S. 449; W/ces (o8 v. Co', 180 vj. S. 506. There s, however, a sixth asagnment of error. For its understanding it is necessary to make a further statement of facts. When certified copies of the journnls of the two houses were offered in evidence, for the purpose of showing tkat at the time of the passage of the bill three-fifths of the members were in fact present, notwithstanding the omission of the pre- siding oicers to certify to thsr presence, counsel for plaintiffs in error made the following objection: 'I object on the ground that the paper offered is incompetent, irrelevant and hnma - terial; that the original journal, if produced, is not a record either at common law or by the statute, and cannot be intro- duced in evidence, and cannot be resorted to by the court for the purpose of either validating or impeacMng any law, and that the legislative law makes the certificates of the presiding olcers conclusive evidence as to whether the majority were present or three-friths, and the conclusive evidence is that there was only a majority present and not three-fifths." The objection was overruled, the evidence was admitted, and an exception was taken. It will be observed that no objec-

�