Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-03-25

see how this can be treated a. anything
but nsdnddtOyy.s ffffi ETfni
The marked differencey in phraseology
employed in our Constitution from that in
Ohio and other States is worthy Of notice
In the latter the language is, "Every bill
Shall be fully and distinctly read on'three
/ different days." ETC., while In the former the
language is not only "Eyery bill shall be
read once on three different days, and be
| passed each time in the house where il
originated before transmission to the other, y
but to place the question beyond doubt, and
as if to place mandate upon the General
! Assembly, the section further provides,
sslNO bill shall become Ldto until it shall
haze been read and passed on three differ
ent days IN each house"
| pa Then, conclude, the bill must be passed
in accordance with the forms prescribed by
| the constitution, or it cannot become Law {.
Did it SO pass2 1t certainly did not. The
| bill in question did not pass but one reading
in the House. A bin with tue same leading
objects for which it was substituted, in lieu,
had previously passed two readings. Bat
| it was House bill, and this Is a Senate bin.
| The former has the caption: "a bill to
amend the tippling laws Of the State" and
the latter the caption. @An act to provide
against the evils resulting from the sale of
intoxicating Liquors in the State Of Tennes-
see."
While they have the same leading objects
they differ in their details, and in some par
ticulars are essentially different bills.
II has been question, whether it is the
| duty Ct the Executive to criticize the mode
Of passing bills by the Legislative branch Of
the Government. Cooley on Constitutional
Limitations, page 153 says: sit has also been
teld that in the approval oflaws the Govern
or component part ofthe Legislature, and
that unless, etc., and on page 155, isThe
power Of the Governor as branch of the
legislative department, is almost exclusively
confined to the approval of bills"
The same view of the question is taken
| by other writers on the subject. The Exc
cutive being In that sense part of the legis-
lative department, is as much bound to dis
approve bill for breach of the Constitu-
| ton in the form of its passage, as In the
subject matter. When bill is signed by
| the Speakers of both houses, the Executive
| should certainly presume that It had regu-
larry passed, and would not be warranted
upon either suspicion or runor in exSmin-
ing the journals in search of defects, and 1
have acted upon this principle. In this
case, however, tbs question was made upon
the bill by a protest fled 10 my Office by
members of the General Assembly, point
ing out the defects above alluded to, and 4
| have, therefore, notice Of the irregul2rity. -
As to the second proposition, Has the
General Assembly the power under the
| Constitution to make the Law effective, or
any part of it operative in any civil district,
upon the condition that the people of the
district vote for it? The solution of this
question depends upon the scope of the
powers of this department of the Govern
ment, as derived from the organic law.
Under SEC. 8, Article IL, of that instril-
meat, the sovereign power of the people is
delegated to the General Assembly in en-
phatic and unqualified language: "The
legislative authority of the State shall be
vested in General Assembly which shall
consist of Senate and House of Repre-
sentatiVes," etc. ..4.
And there is nowhere in the Constitution
the Judgement of power to make laws, ex-
.cept in this department of the government.
The people cannot make law, by their
own direct act, because they have delegated
that power to their representatives and
OEudlDTS III tuO OChCI al oocClnbLJg hOk
could the General Assembly in Joint
convention do so. In the language of an
eminent jurist: "They thus solemnly and
emphatically Invested themselves of all
right, directly, to make or declare the law,
or to interfere with the ordinary legislation
of the State" They can change their Con-
stitution aud lodge the legislative power
where they please; but while that organic
law remains as it now is, they cannot
make law; that instrument can only
be changed in the mode pointed
out by itself. And if the General Assembly
can make one law that becomes effective
only upon an affirmative vote of the peo-
pie, it can legislate upon any question in
the same way. II iG can make
the privilege of tipping depend
ent on a vote OF the people in any
locality, they can also make the privilege of
merchandising, in all its varied and neces-
sary departments, dependent upon the
same condition. Our whole Criminal Code
could be subjected to the same tests.
Whether courts should be held in any
specified locality, or held at all, might be
made dependent upon the same condition.
If the General Assembly can declare that
the right to exercise one privilege, in any
locality, shall be dependent upon popular
vote, it can certainly apply the same test to
all. Pursuits absolutely necessary to the
b, alth and happiness of community are
declared privileges by our code of laws.
Suppose tie General Assembly should de-
clare that the privilege of selling drugs and
medicines should be exercised only upon q
permissive vote of the people and
should prescribe day, a year
hence, as the time for holding the
election, will any one say such law
would be justified by the spirit of our Con-
stitution? Certainly not; and although the
subject of the two laws are very different
in their relations to society, yet, where is
the difference in principle? They are both
privileges and alike subject to the regula-
lions of law. The question of delegation
Of power by the General Assembly has but
seldom come before our courts. In Sd
Sneed Gas, it is said: (McKinney Judge)
erhe delegation Of sovereign power, is in
itself, an act of sovereignty, and can only be
made by the constituent body, in whom the
original power resides or by its express au-
thority."
Again, In speaking of The powers OF the
General Assembly, the learned Judge says:
"Yet the Constitution has prescribed GER
tain bounds which it (the Legislature) can
not transcend, add beyond these limits its
acts are void. The idea of atransfer or
delegation thereof (referring TO Leg
islatiSe powers) being in direct oppo-
sition to the design and ends Of its crea-
tion.n In that case the Court held that the
General Assembly could not delegate the
power conferred by the Constitution of
1884, to grant charters to interpretations, to
the courts. ,H u .-
Before the adoption of the Constitution
of 1894, it was held in Enloe vs.. Mari, i
Yerger, ASP, that the General Assembly
could not authorize a county to levy tax,
nor could it delegate the power of taxation;
and it has since been held that the right to
empower a county or corporation to levy a
I tax exists only in direct authority Of the
| Constitution , vi
But we have adjudicstioDs of other States
where statutes similar 70 this bill, have
been subjected to judicial tests. In Penn
sylvania, an act with essentially the same
provisions was tested before the Sopreme
! Court 10 the case of Parker VS.. Common
wealth, Oh Pennsylvania State Reports,
page $40. The act WAS held unconstitu-
| tional and void. The Court say:
"From this summary ofits features,i it will
be perceived, this Act of the General AS
sembly, whether considered as an enact
ment of new and substantial provisions. or
Il r.oAa