The Nevada journal., 1856-04-11


The Town CoRFoRArIoN. will be
seen from the decision ofour "gentle and
indulgent" Supreme Court, which we pub
lish in full, that the statute which provides
for the incorporation of municipal towns
is declared to be unconstitutional. With
the exception of a little bad latin, which
out of charity we are willing to suppose
was the fault of the printer, and rather
more bad grammar, which out of due
respect We'll charge to the same account,
no exceptions can be taken to the decision
1t disposes, in an extremely brief and sum-
mary manner, of a question of considera-
BILE magnitude, no less than the legality of
every municipal corporation in the State
created under the general law. In truth
the brevity of the decision leaves the rea-
soning upon which it is founded somewhat
in the dark. For instance, some persons
might be curious to know what kind of
act the Supreme Court hold the incorpo-
ration of towns to be-ministerial or legis-
latire-and that point clearly understood,
these same inquiring minds might wish to
know further, why such incorporation is a
ministerial Or legislative act, and not a
judicial act, since this is the point upon
which the whole case turned. F
However, if we look at the matter in
another light, it is entirely immaterial
whether the reasoning of the Supreme
Court is given or understood, because it
is the Court Of last resort. and therefore
the decision itself is really the only i'm
portant point, and it is of no consequence
to the citizens Of Nevada what the grounds
of the decision may be.
We give the decision as published in
the Sacramento Union.
THE People er. rel the attorney Gene
raj VS. The 2own of Nevada. The only
question involved in this case is, whether
he act of March 9th, 1850, SO far as it
confers upon the County Court the power
of Incorporating town governments is con-
stitutional. The jurisdiction of the Coun-
ty Court has been SO often reviewed that
this Court will not be deemed impatient in
simply announcing certain principles al
ready declared by its previous decisions.
First, the performance of certain legisla-
tive functions being con6ded to, or impos-
ed by the constitution upon the Legisla-
ture, must be exercised by that branch of
the government, and in such cases the
maxim, delegatus non protest delegare, ap-
plies. Second, this court has repeatedly
refused, since the question was first raised
to incorporate any college or eleemo-
synary corporation, because the Legisla-
ture can impose no duties upon the judi
ciary, but such as are of judicial charac-
ter; and the incorporation of colleges or
towns are not, stricti juris, judicial, but
ministerial, or rather under our constitu-
ticn, legislative acts, (see Burgoyne VS.
the Supervisors, and Dickey VS.. Hurlburt,
Is Cal. R.) This is not special case
contemplated by the constitution. The
words especial cases" refer to suits or con-
troversies at law, and not to proceedings
of this character. Admitting that the
Legislature can delegate the power under
general law, "a proposition which we nei-
ther affirm or deny,) of establishing town
governments, it must be to the Supervi-
sors, or some other person or body pos
sessing like functions, and not to court
which is inhibited from the performance Of
any other than judicial acts.
Judgment reversed