The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1858-12-28

recite the reasons which led the Legislature
to the conclusion that an emergency exists
for the immediate taking effect of this act
The old constitution permitted the Legis-
lature to put a law in force in case of
emergency, from and after its passage
Under that constitution the Supreme Court
decided that the Legislature was the sole
Judge of the emergency. The practice was
not to declare the existence of an emergen-
cy, but simply to declare the act in force
from and after its passage.
The new constitution differs from the old
only in this, that the emergency which ex-
lists must be declared in the act. Now, what
is this? The fact that an emergency exists,
or the reasoning by which the conclusion is
gained that the emergency does exist p.
Clearly not the latter. For then it would
follow that the courts would have the power
to review those reasons and judge of their
sufhciency. But the courts have nothing to
do with the reasons which induce the Leg
islature to pass law; and as little have
they to do with the reasons which induce
the Legislature to conclude that an emer-
gency exists for the Immediate taking effect
of any given act. To this point desire to
read two or three passages from the opinion
of Judge Stuart in; the case of Beebe vs.. the
State. He says: "The subject, necessity,
policy and expediency of a law are matters
of legislation" q ~ What a law
should embrace involves questions of policy
more properly legislative than judicial
Whether an act is polite, or expedient or
necessary, is not the question with which
the courts have anything to do" .
Z" This court has, therefore, no duties outside
of the constitution; and surely none of q
legislative character conflicting with the ex-
press letter of that instrument. Courts are
not to array their own reason against that
of the Legislature. We cannot declare an
act valid because it conflicts with our opin-
ion of policy, expediency, or Justice
II has been said that the Supreme Court
has decided this point against the view which
| have just presented. This is mistake
This point has not been directly decided by
that Court under the present constitution
An intimation has been given in the case of
Hendrickson VS.. Hendrickson, 9th Ind R.,
art. l 5, which sustains the view have taken
1t is as follows The Constitution, Sec. %,
article a, provides that no act shall take
effect until the same shall have been pub
lished in the several counties of this State,
by authority, except in cases Of emergency,
which emergency shall be declared in the
preamble, or in the body OF the law" 1t
is hardly necessary to say that the declara-
ton of emergency hero contemplated could
not be taken by implication it must be ex-
pressly declared, in substantial conformity
to the requirement Of the constitution. 1t is
therefore obvious that the declaring an act
in force at future day, as in this case on the
FIRST day of August, 1856, is no declaration
of emergency, but simply fixing a distant
period with view of giving sufficient time
r.. ~. - III s-f,
authority"
In this view of the subject | ask the au-
thors and friends of this bill why they will
persist in retaining an obnoxious and useless
recital in the sixth section? Where is the
necessity of placing the gentleman from
Floyd and myself in The position of enemies
TO this bill. For Just so surely as you re-
tain this section as It's, just so surely will we
vote against the whole bill. We are not on
ly willing, but anxious, to vote for q bill,
which, by the wisdom Of its provisions, will
forever shut out all possibility of re-enacting
the disgraceful scenes Of the last session.
We are willing to say that an emergency
does exist for the immediate taking effect OF
this act. For we hold it to be true that the
State should at all times have some such
law to guard the disorder which might arise
from the death, resignation or incapacity OF
either one or both of the Senators tocontinue
in the service of the State Were any prin.
ciple at stake with the friends Of this section
in maintaining it as it is, would not ask
them to surrender it. But I have shown yor
that no possible good can come to you from
retaining it. While surrendering it you re-
leve the gentleman from Floyd and myself
from apparent hostility to measure other
wise right in ITSELF and likely to be henei-
eial in its results.