The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1875-02-18

Ano above rates arc specie.
win dare to inquire into the fraud Of CO
ordinate department of the government,
and no evidence would be permitted 70 be
heard upon this question. Every member
of the Twelfth Legislature may have COW
cred himself with infany By bribes; man
tie Of corruption may have shrouded that
body, yet, SIR, every act passed BY them not
repugnAnt to the State or Federal Constitu-
ti0ns is absolutely valid and cannot be
questioned. Thus disposing az these ques-
tions, i nov proceed TO discuss the ccnsti-
tutionality OF that charter IN doing 50 Il
becomes necessary 20 advert 10 and point
ont the distinctions between State Con-
stitution and that OF the United States. In
our political. system, AIR. Speaker, from the
very beginning the people held In their own
hands all the powers OF absolute gov
erument. The transeendent power Of
the British Parliament dexolvcd on
ehem by the revolution, and antecedents to
the adpotion Of tho Federal Constitution
the power of the States was supreme and
unlimited. Had the people Of any one Of <
the thirteen States given 10 singl individ-
ual the authority which they possessed,
they would have created despotism as abb
solute in its control OF life, liberty and
property as that of the haughhest autocrat
OF the Russians, No despousm known 70
the history Of the world would have been
50 appalling. "A portion of this great power
they delegated in the most guarded terms
to the United States, expressly withholding
all powers not 50 delegated ~ that IN
herent and enormous law-maling powe er not
delegated and not restricted by the limita-
tions of the State Constitutions belongs 70
The LEGISLATURE or he State TO exercise at its
ssiL. It is true that the Legislature cannot
pass q law in conflict with the rightful au-
thonty Of Congress, nor perform judicial
oY executive function, nor change the oriRa-
nal structure Of the government, but oe.
yond that its power is iuimitable and it
rlSses no restraints. Mr.. Cooleg'
''When a law Of
as void, we look TO the National
ton to see If the grant of specifed power
rs broad enough TO embrace il but when q
State law is attacked on the same ground,
il Is presumably valid in any case, and this
presumption is a conclusive one, unless in
the Constitution Of the United States OF Of
the State, we are able TO discover that It is
prohibited. We look in the Consultation
OF the United States for grants Of Legiala-
tive power, but in the Constitution Of the
State to ascertain If any limitations have
been imposed upon the complete power
with which tho Legislative department OF
the State was vested in its creation. Con-
gress can pass no law but such as the Con-
stitution authorizes expressly or by clear
implication, while the State Legislature has
jurisdiction of sll subjects ON which its
legislation is not prohibited. The law
making power of the State recognizes no
restraints and is bound by none, except
such rs are imposed by the Constitution.
It's object isnot to grant Legislative author
ity but to comdne and restrain II. With
out constitutional limitations the power to
make laws is absolute.
The Supreme Court of the United States
has uniformly held TO the doctrine above
enuRciated. In Satterlee v. MattheWson,
2 Peters, $50, an act Of the Pennsylyania
Legislature was censured as unwise and un-
Just, but because 1t came within no express
prohibition of the Constitution, it was held
TO be binding on the parties interested. IneF
Colder V. Bull, Mr.. Justice Iredel says:
''If Legislature shall pass q law within
the general scope of its constitutional
powers the court cannot pronounce Il 20 be
void merely because it is in their judgment
contrary to the principles of natural JUS
tice. The ideas of natural justice are reg
ulated by no fixed standard. The ablest
and the purest men have differed upon the
subject, and all that the court in such On
ture had passed such an act, which, IL the
opinions of the judges, was contrary 70
principles of right In Golden v. Rice, g
w. @. G. R.,) Justice Washington says: "A
State Legislature may make such laws as
they think fit, unless inconsistent with the
powers exclusively vested in the govern
mcnt of the United States, or forbidden by
some article of the State Constitution l
In Bennel v. Boggs, q Bald 74), Judge
Baldwin, in discussing the judgments Of
the court, says, I'VE may think the powers
conferred by the Constitution Of the State
too great or dangerous TO the rights Of the
people and that limitations are necessary,
but we cannot affix them, or act on cases
arising under State law as Il boundaries
had been affixed by the Constitution pre-
viously. We cannot declare Legislative
act void because Il eonJisets Nth our opipi0ns
Of policy, ezpcdiefieg or Justice. The remedy
for unwise and oppressive legislntion, nth
IN Constitutional bounds, is by an appeal 70
the justice and patriotism Of the people,
The great and learned Chief Justice lIaf
shall, in the Providence Bank case, say,
THE wisdom and justice Of the represent
alive body and its relations with Its con
stituents furnish the only security, ehsn
there isn0 ezpress contract, against excessive
taxation as well as against unWise leeisia-
tice Gibson declares, s1That the Con
stitution allows TO tho iegislafuf6
every power which II docs not positively
prohibit. In Commonwealth v. Nice cleasky,
2 Rowell, 374, it was declared that IL the
Legislature pass. law within the scope Oi
their constitutional power, The Judicial ri
| bunals have no right 70 pronounce Il void.
Now, Mr.. Speaker, il Il acknowledged
that there is no direct inhibition % our
State Constitution against the donation 81
boDds. But It Is urged that we 90 beyond
the Constitution and hold that q iAw,
though not prohibited, is void 81 Il violates
the spirit Of our institutions. or fnbaifs anv
OF those rights which il Is the object 81
free govcrnernment 70 protect. Upon thi1
point, Mr. Speaker, / must recur to the De-
cision Of Judge Black in the celebfnfed
case OF Sharpless :. TIE Mayor 81 PhIln~
delphia. This case has been made the
foundation for the vast weight Of authority
that now supports the doctrines which it
enunciated. That case Is the oettled law
Of the whole country, and prcsenistlIe ablost
and most effective argument % Be founo
in the law literature Of any nation.
He says II q law violates the spirit
of our Institutions We cannot pro-
nounce il void. This would be assuming
right 20 change the Constitution 30 sup
ply what We might conceive 70 be rs de-
fects, and 70 iEterpolate into 4 whatever.
in our opinion, ought to have been put
there By its trainers, Cue was evidently
Democrat and strict construetioni5t Ibe
Coustitution has given Is list 81 fhiuss
which the Legislature may not DO. N We
extend that list wenlter the instrumepf We
become ourselves the aggfessors and violate
both the letter and spirit 81 the organic
law. II we can add 20 che reserved rights
Of the people, We can take then sVay y
We can mend, VIC can mar; II wc can ~
move tho landmarks which We Ind esfab-
| lished, We can obliterate them; Il We can
change the Constitution IN any paIticuIaF,
/ there & nothing bat our oEn win - pTcFerf