In a few instances the validity of laws purported to have been enacted by Congress has been questioned upon the ground that they have not, in fact, been enacted by that body in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. This has necessitated the examination of the records of the proceedings of Congress and a determination of the evidential value to be given to these proceedings.

In Field v. Clark1 it was contended by the appellants that an enrolled act in the custody of the Secretary of State, and appearing upon its face to be a law enacted by Congress, was a nullity, because, as was shown by the records of proceedings in Congress, and the reports of committees, including that of the committee on conference, a section of the bill as finally passed was not in the bill authenticated by the signatures of the presiding officers of the two Houses and signed by the President. The court, however, declared that the attestation of the Speaker of the House and of the President of the .Senate, the signature of the President of the United States, and the deposit of a measure as a law in the public archives are to be taken as unimpeachable evidence that the constitutional requirements for legislation have been satisfied, and that the measure as thus certified to has received the approval of the legislative branch of the government. The opinion concludes: "We are of the opinion, for the reasons stated, that it is not competent for the appellants to show, from the journals of either House, from the reports of committees, or from other documents, printed by authority of Congress, that the enrolled bill, designated 1 H. It. 9416,' as finally passed, contained a section that does not appear in the enrolled Act in the custody of the State Department."

1 143 U. S. 649; 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 495; 36 L. ed. 294.

In United States v. Ballin2 the evidential value of records of congressional proceedings was again considered. The points involved and their decision sufficiently appear from the following quotation from the opinion: "Two questions only are presented: first, was the Act of May 9, 1890, legally passed and, second, what is the meaning? The first is the important question. The enrolled bill is found in the proper office, that of the Secretary of State, authenticated and approved in the customary and legal form. There is nothing on the face of it to suggest any invalidity. Is there anything in the facts disclosed by the journal of the House, as found by the general appraisers, which vitiates it? We are not unmindful of the general observations found in Gardner v. Barney (6 Wall. 499; 18 L. ed. 890) 'that whenever a question arises in a court of law of the existence of a statute, or of the time when a statute took effect, or of the precise terms of a statute, the judges who are called upon to decide it have a right to resort to any source of information which in its nature is capable of conveying to the judicial mind a clear and satisfactory answer to such question; always seeking first for that which in its nature is most appropriate, unless the positive law has enacted a different rule.' And we have at the present term, in the case of Field v. Clark, had occasion to consider the subject of an appeal to the journal in a disputed matter of this nature. It is unnecessary to add anything here to that general discussion. The Constitution (Article I, Section 5) provides that 'each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings;' and that 'the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.' Assuming that by reason of this latter clause reference may be had to the journal, to see whether the yeas and nays were ordered, and if so what was the vote disclosed thereby; and assuming, though without deciding, that the facts which the Constitution requires to be placed on the journal may be appealed to on the question whether a law has been legally enacted, yet if reference may be had to such journal, it must be assumed to speak the truth. It cannot be that we can refer to the journal for the purpose of impeaching a statute properly authenticated and approved and then supplement and strengthen that impeachment by parol evidence that the facts stated on the journal are not true, or that other facts existed which, if stated on the journal, would give force to the impeachment." 3

2 144 U. S. 1; 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 507; 36 L. ed. 321.