The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1874-05-07
Is xsse Dlssrfce Printing Law Com
~zitsafional?

" c have thought IL worth WifiI6 10 IL
qaIre whether the District Printing Law
I4teiy passed and approved, and which ]
calculated 10 cripple the energies and i'm
pair the efficiency of the Independent
press, Is in harmony with the constitution
or the state. Ii il is not In accord Will
That instrument, il il necessarily null anC
void, aud can have no operative force
The provision OF the constitution undeI
when the act was passed. and by which
ii Is justified, Is sec. II, Art. XII, which
Is as follows:
! The Legislature, at its first session un
| der thIs Constitution, snail have authority
10 designate by law, such loyal paper OF
papers IN each Circuit Court District, as
I shall publish all legal advertising and such
official printing as shall be required by
/ law, ia such circuit court district, and fx
/ the compensation thereof.
/ Now IL will be observed that this pro-
I vision confers certain powers upon the
/ Legislature, which powers are to be exer-
eIsed ut certain time, and, unless the act
/ passed III pursuance OF the provision above
quoted conforms to these requirements,
IL is unconstitutional and void. An exam
nation OF the law will disclose the fact
that the legislature does not designate
that is appoint, indicate, select the loyal
paper or papers which are to be the oti-
cIai organs, but delegates the power of
selection and appointment 20 the circuit
Judges and chancellors. We believe it is
a we'll settled rule of law that an agent
has no right to delegate the authority to
another, The maxim being ''detegatd pO-
testaS non potest detgari. The members
OF the legislature are nothing more than
mere temporary servants and agents OF
the people, and when the people In their
sovereign capacity confer the power OF
designating certain newspapers as official
organs On the legislature, how can that
bOdy confer its own merely delegated au-
thorIty on the chancellor and circuit
judges-otficers of different and indie
pendent arm of the Government? To ask
lnis question is to answer it, according to
our conception OF the subject. 1t has
been adJudged by the Supreme Court OF
the I nited 0tates-and when John Mar
shall was Chief JustIce-that Congress
cannot enable State to legislate ON
subject, the jurisdiction over which is by
the constitution vested in Congress. And
the principle here illustrated has been
always recognized in England as well as
in the United States, and is firmly settled
in our policy. Under our system if a
certain power of function is reposed in "a
certain body, officer or tribunal, its exer
else by any other body, officer or tribunal,
WilI not be tolerated. And this is abso-
Iutely essential to the proper and orderly
operation OF the governmental machinery.
\ contrary practice would produce endless
confusion and disorder.
As to the time when this legislative
power was to be exercised. The constI-
legislature, lat ITS first session under this
constitution" to designate the official or
cans. There was an effort to exert this
authority by Alcorn's legislature, but the
Governor blighted its eff1orescence with a
frosty veto; and that veto practically rem
dered the constitutional clause under dis
cussion nugatory. 1t ceased to have vi
talty afterward, and cannot now be
Infused with vigor and efficacy by leg
Iafive enactment The trainers of the
constitution and the people who adopted
1t, evidently, from the language used,
designed that this extraordinary power
should be exercised by the first legislature
under the new constltution-the Iegisla-
ture OF 1S70-and not by any succeeding
legislature How else can the provision
be interpreted?
Ii was said by Chief Justice Marshall, |
and reiterated by jurists only less re-
nowned than he, that the constitution OF
the United States (and the same is true |
of the constitutions of the several States) !
* to receive a reasonable construction, /
like other grants, according to the plain |
import of its terms, the words are to be |
taken in their natural and obvious sense |
and notin a sense unreasonably restricted /
or enlarged Let Us apply this canon of
construction TO the provision under re-
view, and it cannot be contended that our !
is not the true and legiti- |
mate one. If the power conferred on the |
legislature was not special and limited, |
why were the words lat its first session |
under this constitution" inserted?
We observe that these words are omitted /
in Sec. 4, of the same article, which au-
thorizes the legislature to provide for a
change Of venue in certain criminal cases; /
also, in Sec 2 of the same article, which |
empowers the legislature to provide for /
the exclusion from Office of persons con- (
yicted Of certain crimes; also, in Sec. 10 |
OF the same article, which authorizes the
legislature to regulate by law, the cases in |
which deductions shall be from the salaries !
Of public officers for neglect Of duty. |
WHY TINS difference in phraseology, if in
both classes of cases, the same jurisdic
ton and authority were to be delegated to
the legislature, without regard to the time
Of their exercised
Two ship-owners in Belfast, Ireland,