« AnteriorContinuar »
tional questions except when forced on them in forms of procedure permitting of due argument and deliberation. The interpretation of the highest tribunal is binding on the inferior ones, the same as are its decisions on other questions of law.?
$ 35b. As between states and United States. The courts of a state are the highest judicial interpreters of its constitution. And when a question of the meaning of a state constitution comes before the supreme court of the United States, it is bound by such state interpretation. In like manner, the interpretations of the courts of the United States are controlling over the state tribunals as to the constitution of the United States.* And an appeal, by writ of error, lies from a final judgment of a state court to the supreme court of the United States, in certain cases involving the construction of the national constitution. The state courts are bound by the constitution of the United States to the extent of permitting those of one state to pass upon the validity, under it, of the legislation of another state.
III. CONSTITUTIONAL FORMALITIES AT ENACTMENT.
§ 36. In general.- A statute, to be valid, must be enacted by the body and in the manner prescribed by the constitution. Thus,
Legislative body - People.— The people," having by the constitution transferred their law-making power to a legislative body, can no longer, without a recall of some portion of the power thus granted, exercise it directly. This proposition is universally conceded. But there are differences as to some of its applications. To explain,
v. Wood, 9 Ind. 286; Lopez v. S., 42 4 Bank of U. S. v. Norton, 3 A. K. Tex. 298; Padelford v. Savannah, 14 Mar. 423; Ex parte Bushnell, 9 Ohio Ga. 438.
St. 77. 1 Parker v. S., 5 Tex. Ap. 579; Tay- 5 R. S. of U. S., & 709; Bridge Prolor v. Flint, 35 Ga. 124; Hoover v. prietors v. Hoboken Co., 1 Wall. 116; Wood, supra; P. v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. The Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall. 51; 481; Shelden v. Miller, 9 La. An. 187. Winn v. Jackson, 12 Wheat. 135.
2 Wheeler v. Rice, 4 Brews. 139; 6 Stoddart v. Smith, 5 Binn. 355; Pierce v. Pierce, 46 Ind. 86.
Braynard v. Marshall, 8 Pick. 194. 3 Aicardi v. S., 19 Wall. 635; Cass v. See Kean v. Rice, 12 S. & R. 203. Johnston, 95 U. S. 360; Bank of North ? Ante, & 33. Bennington v. Bennington, 16 Blatch. 53.
Statute to take effect on popular approval — Municipal corporation.- Whether an individual intrusted with an authority can delegate it to another depends on its nature. An agency with a discretion cannot be delegated, but a mere ministerial one may. Therefore, quite conclusively, a body of official persons, endowed with the discretionary power of making laws, cannot transfer it to other hands. But it is consistent with the nature of a law that it authorize associations of men to govern themselves in their own affairs; therefore, as already seen,’ a statute may establish a municipal corporation, with power to enact reasonable by-laws. And it was never doubted that such a statute may be submitted, for acceptance or rejection, to the people dwelling in the locality to be affected thereby. Yet considerable numbers of courts have held that an ordinary act of legislation is void, if, by its terms, its going into effect depends on a popular vote. Indeed, a count would probably show a greater number of cases in favor of this doctrine than against it. We may doubt whether these cases have proceeded on a right view of the question. It is beyond dispute, in general, that the going into effect of a legislative act may be made to depend on the happening of a future event, or a
Bishop, Con., $ 1067. As to pow. Mo. 529, [59 Am. D. 275;) Louisville ers more analogous to the law-mak- v. Baird, 15 B. Monr. 246; Paterson ing, see S. v. Bell, 34 Ohio S. 194; v. Society, 4 Zab. 385; Maize v. S., 4 Matthews v. Alexandria, 68 Mo. 115, Ind. 342; Meshmeier v. S., 11 Ind. 482; (30 Am. R. 776:] S. v. Fiske, 9 R. L. Santo v. S., 2 Iowa, 165, C63 Am. D. 94; Springer v. McSpadden, 49 Mo. 487;] S. v. Swisher, 17 Tex. 441; Grant 299.
v. Courter, 24 Barb. 232; Clarke v. ? Ante, $ 18; Covington v. East St. Rochester, 24 Barb. 446; P. v. Stout, Louis, 78 III. 548; Lothrop v. Sted- 23 Barb. 349; Louisville & Nashville man, 42 Conn. 583. And see P. v. R. R. Co. v. Davidson, 1 Sneed, 637; Nally, 49 Cal. 478; [Port Mining Co. Morford v. Unger, 8 Iowa, 82; Gee1. Hagood (S. C.), 3 L. R. A. 841, 9 S. brick v. S., 5 Iowa, 491; Bank of
Rome v. Rome, 18 N. Y. 38; Peck v. *Taxes, etc.— And to levy taxes, Weddell, 17 Ohio St. 271; Rice v. Fosand the like. U. S. v. New Orleans, ter, 4 Harring. (Del.) 479; Corning v. 98 U. S. 381.
Greene, 23 Barb. 33; Johnson v. Rich, * Barto v. Himrod, 4 Seld. 483, (59 9 Barb. 680; Morgan v. Monmouth Am. D. 506:] Thorne v. Cramer, 15 Plank Road, 2 Dutcher, 99; P. v. Salo Barb. 112; S. V. Parker, 26 Vt. mon, 46 111. 415; S. v. Weir, 33 Iowa, 357; P. v. Collins, 3 Mich. 343; S. 134; Ex parte Wall, 48 Cal. 279, 313, V. Copeland, 3 R. L 33; Parker v. [17 Am. R. 425;] Brown v. Fleischner, Com., 6 Pa. St. 507, [47 Am. D. 480;] 4 Oreg. 132. S. r. Scott, 17 Mo. 521; S. v. Field, 17 5 Lothrop v. Stedman, 42 Conn. 583;
E R. 686.
contingency; and that, for example, one expired may be revived on the transpiring of a fact to be established by proclamation.' The legislature, in exercising its judgment on the advisability of a measure, may well be governed by the yet unascertained fact of the popular approval or disapproval of it; because, as is well known, laws which do violence to public opinion are not enforced, and often tend to evil, while, if such opinion favored them, their results might be good. Therefore to provide for ascertaining the popular opinion by a vote of the people, and to make the going into effect of a statute dependent on the fact thus arrived at, would seem but a legitimate form of contingent legislation, in the highest degree just in all cases where the legislative body doubts concerning such fact and deems it essential. This is not a transferring, by this body, of any part of the legislative power to the people, but intelligently exercising its own. How generally the full doctrine thus stated is, in recent times, held by the courts it would be difficult to ascertain; but, where the submission is of a local statute to the people of the locality, or of a general one to be accepted or rejected in particular places where the vote is taken, popularly termed in some of its forms a local-option law, the constitutional validity of the proceeding is almost universally conceded.?
Smith v. Janesville, 26 Wis. 291; S. v. of its act depend on some contin-
them to judge in what contingency,
By some opinions, at least, it makes no difference that the law affects equally the entire people of the state. In Rhode Island, where this sort of general legislation has been deemed unconstitutional, the courts sustained an act which provided for a popular vote on the question of its repeal, and, if a majority decide for repeal, it shall have no effect after the tenth day from and after the rising of the session of the general assembly at which the votes are to be counted.?
§ 36a. One subject, expressed in title. The constitutions of some of the states provide that no statute shall embrace more than one subject, and it shall be expressed in the title. There are states wherein this provision is deemed directory only, so that a statute enacted in violation of it is good. But generally it is regarded as mandatory, rendering the contravening enactment void. Still, by the common doctrine, as a statute may be good in part and ill for the residue, if the title specifies one subject and no more, and the parts relating to it are separable from the rest, they will be held valid while the residue is adjudged void. The title need indicate the subject only in Mass 357; Guild v. Chicago, 82 Ill. • Cannon v. Hemphill, 7 Tex. 184; 472; 8. v. Wilcox, 42 Conn. 364; 8. v. Weaver v. Lapsley, 43 Ala. 224; S. v. Cooke, 24 Minn. 247, (31 Am. R. 344;] Miller, 45 Mo. 495; Cannon v. Mathes, Com. v. Weller, 14 Bush, 218; Com. 8 Heisk. 504; San Antonio v. Gould, v. Hoke, 14 Bush, 668; Fredericton v. 34 Tex. 49; Gifford v. New Jersey R. Reg., 3 Canada S. C. 505. Sue English R. Co., 2 Stockton, 171; Parkinson v. V. S., 7 Tex. Ap. 171; S. v. St. Joseph, S., supra; Hill v. Decatur, 22 Ga. 203; 37 Mo. 270; Holcomb v. Davis, 56 III
. Phillips v. New York, 1 Hilton, 483; 413. Contra, Ex parte Wall, 48 Cal. Madison, etc. R. R. Co. v. Whiteneck, 279
, 813 (compare with Robinson v. 8 Ind. 217; Bright v. McCullough, 27 Bidwell, 22 Cal. 379); Parker v. Com., Ind. 223; Keller v. S., 11 Md. 525, [69 4 Pa. Law Journ. Rep. 163; Lammert Am. D. 226;] Cooley, Const. Lim. 141 v. Lidwell
, 62 Mo. 188, (21 Am. R. 411.] et seq. Smith v. Janesville, 26 Wis. 291. 6 Ante, & 34; (E. P. Moore, 62 Ala. And see P. v. Collins, 3 Mich. 343; 471; P. v. Hall, 8 Colo. 485.] Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal. 343.
7 Jones v. Thompson, 12 Bush, 391; 19. v. Copeland, 3 R. I. 33. And see Allegheny County Home's Case, 77 Williams v. Cammack, 27 Miss. 209, Pa. St. 77; Walker v. S., 49 Ala. 329;
P. v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553; Exc parte • Parkinson v. 8., 14 Md. 184, [74 Moore, 62 Ala. 471; In re Sackett,
etc. Streets, 74 N. Y. 95; Fuqua v. "In re Boston Mining, etc. Co., 51 Mullen, 13 Bush, 467; Rader v. Union, Cal 624
; 8. v. Covington, 29 Ohio St. 10 Vroom, 509. And see Shields v. 102
; Pim v. Nicholson, 6 Ohio St. 176, Bennett, 8 W. va. 74; (S. v. Palmes, 180; Washington v. Page, 4 Cal. 388; 23 Fla. 620, 3 S. R. 171.] Cooley, Const. Lim. 81, 82, 150.
[61 Am. D. 508.)
Am. D. 522.]
a general way, without entering into details; and all auxiliary provisions properly attaching to it, and constituting with it one whole, may be embraced within the enactment.
1 Alabama., Miles v. S., 40 Ala. 39; Ass'n, 23 Kan. 499; (Humboldt v. Weaver v. Lapsley, 43 Ala. 224; McCoy, 23 Kan. 249; Shepard v. HellWalker v. S., 49 Ala. 329; Lowndes mann, 23 Kan. 504.] V. Hunter, 49 Ala. 507; Tallassee Kentucky.— Gibson v. Belcher, 1 Mfg. Co. v. Glenn, 50 Ala. 489; $. v. Bush, 145; Hind v. Rice, 10 Bush, 528; Price, 50 Ala. 568; Moses v. Mobile, Collins v. Henderson, 11 Bush, 74; 52 Ala. 198; Key v. Jones, 52 Ala. Fuqua v. Mullen, 13 Bush, 467; How238; Boyd v. S., 53 Ala. 601; Adler v. land Coal, etc. Works v. Brown, 13 S., 55 Ala. 16; Watson v. S., 55 Ala. Bush, 681; Allen v. Hall, 14 Bush, 85; 158; [Montgomery v. S., 88 Ala. 141, [Burnside v. Court, 86 Ky. 423.] 7 S. R. 51.)
Louisiana.— City Nat Bank v. Arkansas.- Fletcher v. Oliver, 25 Mahan, 21 La. An. 751; S. v. Daniel, Ark. 289; Worthen v. Badgett, 32 28 La. An. 38; Police Jury of PlaqueArk. 496.
mines v. Packard, 28 La. An. 199; [Colorado.- Dallas v. Redman, 10 New Orleans v. Dunbar, 28 La. An. Colo. 297, 15 Pac. R. 397.]
722; S. v. Garrett, 29 La. An. 637; [Florida.-S. v. Palmes, 23 Fla. [S. v. Baurn, 33 La. An. 981.] 620, 3 S. R. 171.]
Maryland.— Washington v. FrankGeorgia.—Bibb County Loan Ass'n lin R. R. Co., 34 Md. 159; McGrath v. v. Richards, 21 Ga. 592; Allen v. S., 46 Md. 631; [Stiefel v. Blind InstiTison, 50 Ga. 374; Ex parte Conner, tution, 61 Md. 144.] 51 Ga. 571; Ayeridge v. Social Circle, Michigan.-P. v. Wands, 23 Mich. 60 Ga. 404; (King v. Banks, 61 Ga. 385; P. v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44, 55, 20; McDuffie v. S., 87 Ga. 687.] 57, [9 Am. R. 103;] P. v. Bradley, 36
Illinois.- Neifing v. Pontiac, 56 III. Mich. 447; P. v. Young Men's, etc. 172; P. v. Wallace, 70 III. 680; Burke Soc., 41 Mich. 67; [McKellar v. Dev. Monroe, 77 Ill. 610; Guild v. Chi- troit, 57 Mich. 158, 58 Am. R. 357, 23 cago, 82 Ill. 472; Fuller v. P., 92 Ill. N. W. R. 621.) 182; (P. v. Nelson, 133 IIL. 565, 27 N. Minnesota.- Stuart v. Kinsella, 14 E. R. 217; Thompson v. Akin, 81 Ill. Minn. 524; S. v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. Ap. 62.)
312, 323, [21 Am. R. 765; Boyle v. Indiana.- Hatwood v. S., 18 Ind. Vanderhoof, 45 Minn. 31, 47 N. W. R. 492; Gabbert v. Jeffersonville R. R. 396.] Co., 11 Ind. 365,[71 Am. D. 358;] Igoe Missouri.-S. v. Miller, 45 Mo. 495; v. S., 14 Ind. 239; S. v. Adamson, 14 S. v. Bank of the State, 45 Mo. 528; Ind. 296: Thomasson v. S., 15 Ind. In re Goode, 3 Mo. Ap. 226; Murdock 449; S. l. Young, 47 Ind. 150, 154; v. Woodson, 2 Dill. 188; [St. Louis v. Williams v. S., 48 Ind. 306; Hender. Weitzell, 130 Mo. 616; S. v. Heege, son v. S., 50 Ind. 234; (Jett v. Rich- 135 Mo. 112.] mond, 78 Ind. 316; Com’rs v. Baker, Nebraska.- Smails v. White, 4 80 Ind. 374.]
Neb. 353; S. v. Lancaster, 6 Neb. 474; Iowa. - Williamson v. Keokuk, 44 [B. & M. R. R. Co. v. Sanders City, 9 Iowa, 88; Farmers' Ins. Co. v. High- Neb. 507; K. C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Frey, smith, 44 Iowa, 330.
47 N. W. R. 87.] Kansas.— Division of Howard, 15 Nevada.-S. v. Silver, 9 Nev. 227. Kan. 194; S. v. Bankers, etc. Benefit New Jersey.- S. v. Union, 4 Vroom,