Request By:
Mr. Vic Hellard, Jr., Director
Legislative Research Commission
Capitol Building
Frankfort, Kentucky
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of April 20 in which you seek an opinion concerning the enactment of Senate Bill 114 relating to motor vehicles. You relate the following facts and questions:
"According to the House Free Conference Committee Minority Report, it appears that House Amendment Number 6 passed. When the Senate concurred in the House Free Conference Committee Report, it appears that it concurred in the majority report rather than the minority report, which does not include House Amendment Number 6.
"The bill was enrolled without House Amendment Number 6, signed by the presiding officer of both Houses and delivered to the Governor. It became law without his signature.
"The bill was delivered to the Secretary of State with explanations and copies of various amendments.
"The following questions have been raised: Did the bill pass the General Assembly? In codifying, should Amendment Number 6 be incorporated into law?"
Our response to your question would be to the effect that we believe Senate Bill 114 as passed and duly enrolled without House Amendment Number 6 represents the law on the question and, as a consequence, Amendment Number 6 cannot be incorporated into the law.
Initially, we call your attention to the case of Golightly v. Bailey, 218 Ky. 794, 292 S.W. 320 (1927), wherein the Court recognized the legal status attached to a properly attested and enrolled bill, but at the same time pointed out that the journals may be resorted to in those instances where the legislation is ambiguous or its construction doubtful in order to ascertain the intention of the legislative body. The Court made it clear, however, that such outside references can only be resorted to where the enacted legislation involves problems relating to verbal inaccuracies, clerical errors, omitted words, or altering the arrangement or construction of sentences for clarification purposes.
On the other hand, however, the law is equally clear that where the omission in the enrolled bill involves a substantial change or an amendment such as we have here, said bill may not be impeached by the journals of either house, or any memorandum of the clerk with respect to the intention of the legislature, or in any other manner. Referring to the case of Vogt v. Beauchamp, 153 Ky. 64, 154 S.W. 393 (1913), the Court had before it the question of whether or not a bill that did not pass but which was duly enrolled, could be impeached by evidence in the journal. Quoting from the decision, we find the following:
". . . It is sufficient to say that in the case of Lafferty v. Hoffman, 99 Ky., 80, the question was considered with great deliberation, and the various authorities discussed at length. In that case the court held that an enrolled bill, when attested by the presiding officers of the two houses of the General Assembly, as required by law, could not be impeached by the journals of these houses, but must be accepted by the courts as the bill adopted by the legislature, and as conclusive of the regularity of the steps taken in its passage. The doctrine of that case is fully sustained by the following authorities: Field v. Clark, 143 U.S., 649; Carr v. Coke, 116 N.C., 223; Duncan v. Combs, 131 Ky., 330. As the enrolled bill in this instance was properly attested by the presiding officer of each house of the General Assembly, and is therefore conclusive of the regularity of the steps taken in its passage, it follows that it may not be impeached by the journal of either house, or the memorandum of the clerk on the original bill, or in any other manner."
See also the case of Shannon v. Dean, 279 Ky. 279, 130 S.W.2d 812 (1939).
Under the circumstances and as we have indicated above, we are of the opinion that Senate Bill 114 as enrolled [without House Amendment Number 6] and signed by the presiding officers of both houses and which became law without the Governor's signature, represents the law on the question as enacted at the 1978 General Assembly.