The Hillsdale standard. [volume] (Hillsdale, Mich.) 1851-1909, 1853-12-20
From the Detroit Advertiser.
The Report Of the City Attorney on the Prohibi-
.'a1e s a tory Liquor Law rr

'eus M tory Liquor Law. fr
The Common Council having requested and
directed the City Attorn-y TO report on tho con-
siitutionality of the law submitted TO the peo-
pie last June. and affirmed by some 20. 900 ma
jority. The City Attorney, James B. Withcrell,
Esq, has made the following pupgent report
against its constiiutionality. The Courts may
sustain tho opinion, and time may be gained;
but if SO it will only make the same majority
that passed in constitutional mode, and tho
men shall be sont to Lansing who will put IL
through in double quick time. Meanwhile the
law is in force and ought to be respected un-
| til decided unconstitutional by tho Court Ia
which belongs the right of deciding finally OH
that question. 11ati- ~ sc-
In obedience to the resolution of the Common
Council requesting tho Recorder and direct
ing the Attorney to report upon the constitu-
tionality of the liquor law, the City Attorney
begs leave respectfully to report. la
That the people of Michigan in adopting The
Constitution of the State. delegated all tho
legislative power to and vested it in the Sem
ato and House of Representatives preserving
to themselves the right of determining upon
general Banking Law alone.) The people
having parted Voluntarily with this power can
not resume il, except by change in the Con-
sttutioL or q revolution. aa uuilI
The Legislature cannot divest itself of this
power and its accompanying responsibility,
nor delegate it to the whole or any portion Of
thepeople, for the authority of the Legislature
is limited and cannot transcend the powers Civ
ell it, in the constitution which created il,
and whenever it attempts to do SO, its acts bo-
ing without authority are void, and not only
are such acts void as directly violating somo
express provision of the fundamental law, but
also all acts which indirectly conflict with the
spirit of the constitution and tend to its over
throw.
The act of February last "prohibiting the
manufacture of intoxicating beverages or the
trufic therein,' was an at tempt to evade the
provisions Of the constitution; an attempt 10
shift the responsibility of legislation from the
shoulders of their representatives to the broad
er shoulders of the people.
The attempt was violation of the cOnstitp-
tion and the act nullity. as it came from tho
hands of the Legislature it was not complete
law and there is no other legislative power in
the State to complete it. The Senate and
House of representatives fashioned tho body
of the creature, but, neglected to endow il
with life and they were the only persons capa-
Bile of vivifying its inanimate form, and this
they left with others.
That the Legislature required the people TO
exercise legislative powers. apd that the act If
ever it took effect at all either in 1853 or 1870,
would have owed its vitality entirely to the di.
rect vote of tho people in June last, is clearly
seen by close examination of section 20. IL
is argued by those who advocate the constiiii-
tionality of The act, that it did not depend en-
tirely on tho vote of the people, that If they
had voted against the law il would at ii events
have gone into operation in 1870. To show
tho fallacy of this argument 1t is necessary but
TO quote portion of said section 20. "If il.
shall appear thata majority of the vote east
have thereon Adoption of the law prohibiting
the manufacture of intoxicating beverages,
and the traffic therein, Yes, this act shall be-
come law of the State from ana after tho first
day of December, 1858, but if majority of the
votes cast upon the question havo thereon
Adoption oflhe law prohibiting tho manufac
turs Of intoxicating beverages and the traffic
therein No. then this act shall take effect
and become law of State from and after la9tflt; the
first day Of March lSz0." '4f'
So that if majority of tho people had voted
No they would have voted in favor Of the laws
aking effect in 1870 But suppose the people
had all refused to vote, or what is very possi-
bio. that the nuElber Of these voting No, had
exactly equalled tho number of those voting
Yes, a tie vote, when could the law gone into
operation? There is but one answcr-never-
both conditions are dependent upon the vote
Of the people. that If the law is constitution
ii in every other particular (Which is doubted)
t owes whatever present vitality is possessed to
The direct action Of the people
Believing, then that the act in question
was Incomplete. being deficient in its most e5..
'ential particulars, when it left the hands cf
he Legislature, and that the submission of said
let to the people was an unauthorized attempt
o delegate legislative power, ] am constrained
o believe that act unconstitutional and void
The Supreme Court of several States have
ecently held the submission of law by the
legislature TO the people Of their sanction, to
,e an Unconstitutional nct viz. New York in
he ease arising on the school law; Pennsyl-
ana in the case Of Parker vs. the Common
wealth; in Delaware in the case of Rice VS..
Foster. JAS. B. WITHERELL,
f - City Attorney.
. ,.fty.
INsANrTuporcu Eycrssrvp low A vrtor