The Hillsdale standard. [volume] (Hillsdale, Mich.) 1851-1909, 1854-05-02

such aw Shall have effect until approved by a
majority Of tho electors of this State.
We are now prepared to examinate the ACT
under consideration.
No one will contend that il is the law of this
State cxcept so far as il Expresses Tho will Of
ibo lcpisaiurc, and j. not in conflict with the
constitution.
But il does not express their will that any
OF it's provisions. except sections lS. 10 and 20.
should take effect before 1870. Nor does its
cnactihen, imply their judgment os TO the ex
pcdicncv Of lis taking effect at an early pcriod
IL might have passed the legislature in its
present form. although every member thought
II expcdient that it should become law
The sections mcntined provided for 'aking a
vote of he people upon the question whe her
or moi tho net should take effect at an carly Pc
riod. namely on the second If December 1853.
and declared that il should then become law
If n majority ofthe votes cast should br in Ia
vor of II. The vote OF the people expressed
their will and their judgment that it was expc-
dent that il should become tho law of this
State on Tho day last mentioned
I n The net tcxcertthr sections mentoned) T.
now in force who exeried The power which
put /, in force? Certainly no. the legislature.
They merely clothed il with the forms and So
leihni,i,s by which lnws must he authenticated
and conferred upon tho peoplo the power to
pnt il in force in December 1853. Without
the exercise of lis power bv 'he pronlc. or
somc further act of tho legislature. it must
have remained without vitality until 1870
Clearly il was the will of the people expressed
bv their votcs in June. which put it in fnrce.
And thar will was directed 10 the same end i'm
pied he exercise Of tho same discretion, and
was therefore Of The same nature. as the will
which the Legislative would have exercised if.
instead of scctons iS.i 9 and 20. they had enac
TED the words"This act shall become law from
and aftcr Dec. I. 1882 This was legislative
WILL The power Of putting law IN force, by
its exercise, was lcgislrtvc power. The sec
tions of the act which purported TO confer it,.
If valid. delegated legislative power to the peo
ple in the only wav IN which. as we have al
r, adv shown II was practa cable to delegate it,.
And thu net if ir force is so only in virtue of
the exercise of this delegated power:
II seem. to have been supposed by, some that
the constitutional objection which might exist
to submission Of the question wheihor the
act should take effect at ALL might be evaded
bv submitting the question whether it shond
take effect at one o. the other of two periods of
time separatcd from each other BY an interval
seventeen wears But there is obviously no
difference Of principle between the two cases.
ne UfIpTtnlHd'lOIl VI ihlttT VuFS'ltu "''ul"
Just as clearly be an act Of Legislation as the
determination "f the former " @ do not un.
derstand the Council for the people 10 insist. or
anv member of this Conrt TO be the opinion.
that there is anv distinction between thcm.-
Indeed. the former. was the real and substan-
tial question submitted hy the act Of 1853 -
No great respect is due to the sophjsiry which
dictated tho form of il. and which seems 10 as
sumo TINT constitutional objection t. an IN
onalifed submission might be evadcd BY sub
mit,ing the question wheher bn act shonld be
come Inv rrescntly or in the next genera
ton. Obviously ,h same result would he ac-
compishpd by he one mode IF legislation as
Nv the other II /. thp thing done and not The
mode of doing itwhch is material A cons,i
tuition which could be cvaded by such subter-
fooo would scarcely 10 worth the paper on
ehch i, is written.
Tho conclusions NJ which we have arrived
namelv-frs that tho power of legislation in
reference 10 general laws is vested exclusively
i'm The legislature and cannon be delegated: nnd
secondly that the taking effect of such laws
cannot be made to depend upon the result Of
a popular vote upon the question of whether
or whom ttey shall takc effect. because this
would be a del CATION OF such power from
which il necessarily results that the act in
question has never ct heen constitutionally
put in force-are fully sustained by the deeis
ion Of the Surrcme Conrt of Delaware. in Rice
U.s. Foster. Harr Del r. AT; of tho Su-
premr Court of PENNSYLVANIA. IN Parker VS..
The Commnuweath 6 Barr. 500; by three de-
cisnn- of different Supreme Cour's in New
York ONLY one of which bradley VS. Baxter.
Am Law Reg. Sept. 1853 is vet reported;
and fnallv by the unanimous decision of the
Court of Appeals of thai State in 3arto VS..
-, I,I,
York cases all involved in question of the va
lidiy of the School Law of that State which
WIS submitted to the people f'r adoption or re-
lection, md no attempt has been made to dis
tinguish them from the case before VS. The
same views were expressed by Stuart. j., ia
declaring the opinion of the Supreme Court of
Indiana in Maise va. The State decided in No
vember last: but they we're not necessary tp
the detcrmint tion of the case than bof,re the
Court. Such weight Of authority against the
validity of species of legislation which all
know is of recent origin, could scarcely be ex-
pected; and If the case before was far less
clear upon principle than il is to onr minds. We
shoad hesitate long before we veniurcd tn dis
sent from the viows Of tho eminent iurist> who
have proceeded us in The consideration of this
subject.
There i but one contrary decision. and hat
- w 'bt clSt pi JolHSin VS.. IlfHs W. lDdTU -.
G. r.. ESQ., decided by The Supreme Court of
New Yor' for the 7,li District. three Judges
were present and one dissenting; mud that case
has been overrulcd by the Court of Appeals in
Barto vs. Hmrod. already referred to- In the
people vs. Reynolds. I. Gln. I. the Common
wealth v. Quarter Sessions Barr 39ls and
Commonwealth rs. Painter. I 0 Barr 2l4. laws
special and local in their nature wore made 10.
take effect upon the vote of the people Of tho
Counties or townships interested were he'd va
LID. We think these cases were all correctly
decided upon the principle We have already
explained AZ some length that powers of local
lcri.laion may be delegated. We conceie,
however. ho, ever. that 'hr Courts BY whom
they were respectively decided do not place
them distinctly upon this ground Whatever
explanation may be given to them. one thing
is certain-that expressly concede that gene
raj laws cannot be made to take effect upon
the result of popular vote. This concession
is distinctly made in The People vs.. Roynolds,
and the two remaining cases were decided by
the same Court which had previously decided
Parker VS.. The Commonwealth. with the ex-
uross nvpWnl that in was not tho iutantior N