Muscatine weekly journal. [volume] (Muscatine, Iowa) 185?-1890, 1859-04-29

onger, Detenddnt. Appeal from MuS;a
tine County.
OPINION OF TIE SUPREME COURT.
The only question t. be considered in this case is
whether the act of the Legislature of Iowa, APP
proved July 18th, 1856, entitled Gan act to amend
ohe act TO incorporate the city of Muscstne,'' is
constitutional. BY this act, it is conceded, the
limits OF the city of Muscatine were extended about
enc milo on the cast, and about TWO miles on the
north and west, Ueyoad its former boundary.
Inc plaintiff lived upon the territory brought
INTO tho city by tho act aforesaid, upon land used
exclusively for farming purposes, about one mile
from the old city limits, and about the same dis
tance from any lands laid ut into city or town
lots, or used as city property. His and 50 uyed
was taxed by the city at the sum Of one dollar per
acre. This tax he refused to pays and his propert
6olng destrained for the payment thereof, he
brought this action of replevin to test the con.
stItutionality Of the act extending the limits of
| the city.
1t is objected that the object of the act is not
expressed IN the title and that it is therefore in
valid in virtue of that provision Of the C,nstitu
tion OF 1916 which required that EVERY law shall
embrace bat one object which shall be expressed in
its tltle.' CJn. 1S46, Art. 3, Sec. 2s)
The object expressed in this instance was to
amend The act incorp rating the city. With this
object was consistent the purpose of enlargn the
limits OF the city. These limits were fixed by the
act sought to be amended-an alteration Of them
was one OF the modes in which The act subject
TO amendment. The general purpose was we'll ex-
pressed by emitting the act "An act to amend the
aat to Incorporate the city of Muscatinc," and a:
entirely as in oJnsOnance with such purpose. We
think 1t was l. innate for the Legislature to ex-
tend the limits of tn, city, engraft any other pro.
VISION not entirely Inconsistent with the purpose
OF amending the charter then in force If it c)ul
DO objected that by such enlargement of the limits
the chart or was not amended, there might be more
pauslbllty In the objection that the object of the
law was not expressed il the title.
Santo vs.. State, 2 Iowa. 209,
State vs.; County Judge G. Ibid 283.
Beilule |. c. R. r. c. vs.. Gregory, Is III %.
Martin vs.. Breach. 6 Geo. 81.
Walker VS.. Caldwell, L. Rept. 29i.
Succession of Langotte l.. Rept. 329.
Saefon VS.. DefIoo L.Rept. $40.
Davis vs.. the State, Maryland 151.
Battle VS. Howard, IL Texas 345.
Washington vs.. Murray, California 1888.
Inc second objection made is that the act in
question was passed at the extra session of the
General Assembly, and was not one Of the OH ects
for which the same was convened.
1t Is provided by tae Constitution of 1916, Art.
D, Sec z, that "Ihe sessions of the Geaeral As
sembly shall be biennial, and shall commence on
the hrst Monday of December, next ensuing their
election, unless the Governor SHALL in the int er i'm
| convene the General Assembly by proclama ion."
Art 4, Sec. ., provides that the Governor "may
| on extraordinary occasions convene the General
Assembly by proclamation, and shall state to both
houses when assembled, the purposes for whi b
|
When lawfully convened whether in virtue of
the provision of the Constitution the Governor
proclamation, 1t is the General Assembly" Of the
State, in which the full and exclusive legislative
authority of he State is vested.
When Its business at such session is not restrict
ed by some constitutional provision the general
assembly may enact any law at special or extra
session that 1t may at regular session. Its powers
not being derived from the Governors proclama-
ton, and not confined to the special purpos es for
| which it may have been convened by him.
by the seventh section of the Act, it is provided
that the same shall take effect from and after its
acceptance by the city council Of Muscatiae and
| It's pubhca ton at the expense of the city.
1t Is objected by the plaintiff that this section
roq7iriEg that tie act should be accepted by the
city council before taking effect rendered the whole
act invalid, as not being enacted in the mode pre-
| scribed by the Consttu lon.
The General Assembly, it is well held, cannot
relieve itself Of the responsibility of its functions
by submitting Its acts to vote Of the people, the
duties of legislation not to be exercised by the
people at rye.
Santo vs.. the State, Iowa 20s.
State VS.. Giebricht, 5 Iowa 491.
1t may be well however to enquire whether there
has been in this instance any delegation Of its
powers by che Legislature to the people or 10 any
other tribunal. We think there has not been
The L9gis ature might well provide that the
thority Of the city should not be extended over the
new territory upon tho expressed consent Of the
such consent should be given through the city
council by its acceptance Of the act.
10 this We think there can be 10 valid objection
OF the score of right or power 1t was not dele
CATION of the legislative function.
Ia questions affecting private rights the Legis
assent to an acqurescCrrr 70 The implied
parties interest Cd. In questions affecting mu-
nclpal gov2rnm mt, thtr ASTON Is often necessary
to carry it into effect. And whether expressed
upon the face of the law ot the question of the
- and, Il
charter is practical one, aud nee ssarily involve
in the passage CT adoption Of every such act
Santo vs.. the State, Iowa 2G3, 206.
In the city of Patterson the Society H.,
III briskie 4t3, it is held that provision in q
municipal charter that the same shall not take
eff ct until approved by majority Of district
corporated is not delegation of legislative power
but is the mers question of the acceptance of
charter.
For the reasons above Indicated, we think the
act in question is not liable to the objection that
it was not psssel with Law according to the forms
of the Constitution. 1t will not, therefore, be
necessary tor US TO enquire further whether so
much only as the act as provides for its taking
effect on its acceptance by the city council might
not be held unconstitutional and void and the re-
main3er of the permitted to stand in full fo!ca
Upon that branch of the subject will not do
more than refer, for the rule Of law, to few au-
thOriti -
Stats vs. Santo, Supra.
Norris vs.. city Of Boston, 4 NJ. 2SS.
Fisher vs.. M'Gvn, Gray %.
Clark vs.. Files, 2 Black. 10.
Sedgnick Constitution Law 1855, 4S9.
The People vs.. Reynolds, Gslni Al l.
Commonwealth b VS.. judges and Court, Barr. 59l.
Savannot vs.. The State, Geo. 26.
The remaining objections made to the act are
that it, for an extension Of the authority Of the
city over the plaintiff and all persons living in the
extended limits without their consent, and that the
fnl- tbN nj inf liz
use without just cempensation.
The power to create corporation, for municipal
purposes was given TO the General Assembly by
the Cons.i utlon of 1916 Cart. s, See. ~ in force
at the time of the Incorporation OF the city OF Mus-
catne.
The right Of the legislator, to make such law
is not de TO depend upon the consent OF the in
hahtants or propEietorS Of the land on which the
proposed city or town is situated. such consent
were requisite thea the of each proprietor
must be first obtained, bee use the consent of no
maj ority, however large, would bind minority,
however small, and the power of legislation in
such condition of things, would be mostly that
Of efectUatng the will of each undivid I'D propri-
etor. If the leg Stature has tho power to ipcorpO-
rate twG city, the ex tension of the limits of
such Incorporation, and the bringing of additional
land to the people under the municipal authority,
being an act of ike naturs, depends for its au
thority On the same constitu iona provision.
So the power of imposing a local government
tanning the extent eff the corporation and its just
boundaries, well the powers to be vested in the
local government. Among the powers deemed es-
sentia to the objects Of the corporation is that of
levying such reasonable taxes upon the property
within its limits as may be necessary for such To-
cal purposes the corporationi is authorized to &C
complsh.
BY the act to amend the character of the city
of Muscatine, proved Jan. I'D, 1898, Session
Act-p. 81 the city council are authorized to levy
toxr ,f nj pr m ne IN n ne |
year upoa the assessed value Of the property in
the city.
By the act now in question all the lands lying
within the territory added to the city, not laid
out into lots and lots arnot to be taxed other
wise than by tn, acre, according to tbs value of
sams for ayrcu turai, horticultural, mineral or
other purposes, bat Improvements thereon, it is
provided, may be taxed at their full value.-(Sec.
5-p. 81
Ii is argued by the plaintiff that the extension
of the limits Of tho city, so as to include a4jacent
lands, without tho consent of the wners, and the
subsection of the Same to the aut horty and tax
! |, a. hi