legislation providing powers concerning eminent domain, administrative law and criminal law combined in Indiana Port Commission Act
How later courts described this case
- legislation providing powers concerning eminent domain, administrative law and criminal law combined in Indiana Port Commission Act
- “The Constitution has to be read as a whole and not as a part.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Opinion on Petition for Rehearing
Per Curiam.
The petition for rehearing filed by Edwin K. Steers, Jr., as Attorney General of the State of Indiana, asserts that, in part,
“Said decision and opinion is violative of the Indiana Constitution, Art. 4, Sec. 25, when the opinion admits:
‘ . . . that the Senate Journal shows that the bill did not receive “a majority of all members elected to” the Senate as provided in Article 4, Section 25 of the Constitution of Indiana,’ “and . . . ‘This record reveals that after the bill was amended radically at a conference of both houses, it was returned to the Senate and upon a vote of 25 ayes and 24 noes, the conference report was approved and the bill was then signed by the presiding officers of the respective houses as passed, as provided in Article 4, Section 25 of the state Constitution.’ ”
The court, on rehearing, on reviewing the record finds that the record in fact does not contain the Senate Journal, and the previous opinion has therefore been amended on rehearing to delete the statement as to what the Senate Journal disclosed in this case and to substitute therefor a statement as to the contentions of appellees, as to the contents of the Senate Journal.
Although not mentioned in the petitions for rehearing, we have also corrected a minor clerical error by *449 substituting the words twenty-four cents for twenty-five cents appearing in the opinion.
Subject to the foregoing comments, we now on rehearing adhere to the conclusions reached in our previous opinion.