The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1873-09-20

never imagined that he is exercising a
judicial function. IA, f.isa /
A discretion may and no doubt is
often exercised by administrative ot6-
GERS. But it is not of the essence Of /
their Office. Their imperative duty is |
often simply to do and not to con-
slider.
CASES HAVE BEEN CITED
by the learned counsel for the defend
ants which are supposed to have an
application to the present controversy.
Vi the seven cases cited by the
learned counsel for the defendant
four have no pertinency to the pres
ent case. m scr ;Fp
The question submitted to the peo-
pie in the cases cited from New York
and Iowa (Barto v. Himrod, 4 Seld.
4S3; State ". Weier. 33 Iowa, 134, }
were, whether the enactments in ques-
tion should become laws. They were
not to be laws unless the people voted
that they should become so.
+ The question submitted in the Michi-
gan case (The People v. Collins, 3
Mich. 343 was, at what time the law
should take effect, and the judges
were equally divided as to whether
the law Was or was not constitutional.
The cases in Pennsylvania and Del
aware and Vermont appeal of Lock
ct al, Chicago Legal News, vol. 5, p.
1852, Rice v. Foster, 4 Harr. 479, Ban
croft v. Dumas, 81 Vermont, 456, are
! more nearly in point. In those States
the question was submitted to the
electors to determine by vote whether
licenses should issue or not, and two
Of the courts-the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania and the Supreme Court
, Of Vermont-he!d that the law was
! liable to no constitutional objection.
/ The decision in Pennsylvania over
ruled a previous decision OF that court,
on the ground that laws of similar
nature, where. the sale of liquors was
not involved, had since been repeat
eaiy upheld by that court, so that
their first decision could not be up
held unless a more favorable rule was
to be applied to the retailers of liquor
than to other suitors. None of these
laws, however, are like the laws now
in question before this court. 1t is
not law the taking effect of which is
submitted to the people. 1t does not
submit the question whether license
tshall issue to vote of the people, but
requires, merely, that to obtain a
license, the applicant shall abtain a
fixed lumber Of signers to his petit
ton, exceeding half of the voters who
cast their ballots at the next preced-
| srn, (Nonrrncs.nraI o1oo@,,- Al n,
/ have shown before, such law was
distinctly upheld by this court, when
| It's judicial functions were exercised
| by Blackford and Sullivan and Dewey,
and class of laws has been upheld
J by the present judges of this court of
similar character, but when it has
chanced that the questions in contro-
versy did not relate to the sale of in
! toxicating liquors.
| The decisions of other States,
whether favorable or adverse to the
present law, can have little weight
for the reason alluded to before-that
before the present constitution was
ordained law like the present one in
all the substantive features that have
application to the presen. controversy
had been held valid by this court, and
that the constitution was framed ir
the light of the construction which
had been given to that statute, and in.
cidentally to the provision that al
legislative powers were vested in tht
General Assembly. To give differ
ent construction to that instrumen
new, after the great body of legisla'
ton which has assumed that the ole
practice and construction were cor
rect, would be scarcely distinguishabl
from the exercise by the judiciary o
legislative powers.
MUCH HAS BEEN SAID
in the argument, with great felicity O
style, of the dangers always to be ap
pretended from the people when the
exercise a direct Office in the maxim
of laws. If the well chosen word
and the sounding rhetorical period
that have been uttered, had been de
livered by an English landlord, dep
recating the extension of popula
franchises, they would have had a ia
miliar and harmonious sound, bu
they jar strangely upon the ear whe
they drop from an American tongue
| dare say that they were rather ser
timcnts put forth in the ardent spir
Of advocacy. in support of side of
) cause that needed that kind of argt
ment, and that they are not supporte
, by the deliberate Judgment of our di
. tinguished brother.
Great strength of assertion is p,
forth to show that the purpose of ii
convention which framed our const
, triton, was to enlarge Representative
, and to diminish popular authorit
8 In the view We have taken Of the cas-
! the question is of little importanc
Y But [ deny that the present constit1
2 ton was founded in distrust Of Il
l people acting in their primary capae
, ty. ] assert. on the contrary, that
was constitution founded in di
trust of the Legislative department
) the government.
e | invoke, in proof of what assel
e the provisions that the sessions shou
e be held biennially; that no regul
y session extend beyond sixty days; tn
no Senator or Representative, duril
e the term for which he is elected,
e eligible to any Office, the election
v which is vested in the General A
!, sembly; that every act shall embra
: but one subject, which shall be e
|. pressed in the title; that no act sh.
h ever be revised or amended by me
e reference to its title; that local
d | special laws should not be passed
# many enumerated cases; that the vo
on the passage Of every bill shall
It by yeas and nays; that the election
Secretary, Treasurer and Auditor
/ State and the Judges of the ,Circ,
n Courts was taken from them. asse
e that the constitution was founded
= trust in the people. The Secretal
# Treasurer and Auditor Of State,
y fore chosen by the Legislature we.A
o be elected by them. So also the VIII.
IS judiciary. And the provision requ
1t ing that when general laws could
it made annlicahle local laus should r