, 1862-05-12
dept constitution without submitting it to

adept constitution without submitting it to
the peuple.
. t Is clear that the delegates were elected
by the people, to "dlter or a1ntfsd thu sconHitu-
tien." They were the constituted agents Of
the people for; this purpose, and no other:
Any other power assumed By them except
this power, would be usurpation. They
could not elect OF remove the governor, or
judges OF the supreme court, Or impose
tax- In short, they could do only what they
the constituiion Of Il lie 81 State f of Illinois inc '
: Il, as e;aimed, they could do this BY their
own yo.e, and without the vote of the peo-
PIE, stI1, this Is I'LL they could do. But the
repeal OF special Laws Is no part Of the cunstf-
fution, and constitutes no amendment Of it.
sha = sha a Rs e q &c sSsn & n9 e s aet the
Fention to adopt new constitution without
submitting It to the people, al which they
could hare done would hare been to have en-
bodied init the general provision Of that Sec
taon none nls9g nF2 5nS md lt9as 3Ss
pealcd any existing Law. The convention had
no legislative power either to make or to re-
pea1 Special laws, bat only to establish gen
eral fundamental law for the State.
4 new constitution docs not and cannot, in
my Judgment, repeal existing laws ipso 1se:o,
It provides the foFms and modes under which
legislation i5 thereafter to be enacted, but cau-
not Itself legisate. Our american system of
tree government Eas among its fundamental
ideas the division Of 1egisl1dre, executive and
JEd1c1M power among different 1rlbuna1s, each
operating as q CHECK upon the other. The
idea OF Legislative and executive authorities in
one body Of men, without check OF restraint,
IS essential despotism, and is utterly repug
nant to the fundamental truths underlying our
political system.
II the convention could repeal the laws ere.
atirg one department Of the city government
Of Chicago, they could with equal propriety
repeal the city charter itself, and Ill the other
Laws Of the State, and remove al its executive
and Judicial officers. Such doctrine Is un-
heard Of in the history Of these States, It
has no foundation in principle, and is destruc-
tiye Of the rights and liberties Of the people.
Hence, in either point Of view Of the pow
ers Of the convention, the clause in section
thirty-four repeating the laws therein named,
would be equally invalid, and have no hesi-
tatlon in affirming that such repeating clause
cannot be considered as Of any legal validity
whatever.
In giving this opinion have not alluded ia
the disastrous consequences which might re-
suit to the city, By the repeal Of the only Law
under which any police force for the protec.
tion Of public order and the security Of life
and property, could be appointed. These ar
certainly most important considerations, bui
they rather seem to furnish rrasons why the
| people should not vote in way to bring these
evils upon themselves, than to affect the ques
tion under discussion.
The consequences Of any enactment are Of nj
importance, It the enactment is without IN
certainty in its terms, and WAS passed By com
| petent authority. Il is clear, beyond contin
| gcncy, that the section in question, il valid
does positively repeal the laws named, ant
| hence, if the convention had power to pass it
| the consequences which It's adoption will en-
| tail upon US, are proper reasons to be nrSet
! for ltS rrihrfinn hy fhp nr0nfn hr1t haEi
| no pcrtinency in the determination Of the 1e
| gal question submitted to me.
Your ob't servant, E. c. LARSED.
| Chicago, april 4th, 1869.