Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-02-25

spiritual depths Of his soul eScIaim5, aPrc-
digiOus,n
Our author says, still farther: "The
Legislature in these eases is not regarded
as delegating its authCrily. This proper
ly belongs 20 local communities.
The Hfth and sixth sections Of the bill
authorize corporations or quasi corporations
to give the assent Of the State. in proper
cases, by vote or otherwise. Our lawyer
says, one can see at 4 glance, that here is a
delegation Of legislative power. He quotes
Rice vs.. Foster, and saws here is a judicial
construction of 4 similar question.
This We deny. The questions were not
similar, and "a Member Of the Bar ought
to have known it. The petitions in the
Delaware case simply askedthe Legislature
to refer it to the people TO decide whether
the laws licensing the sale of spirituOus
liquors should be repealed, and the Legis-
laJure granted the petition, and they decid-
ed by vote to repeal the law. The Judge
in that case said: sThe laws licens ing
the sale Of spirits are valid laws, and must
remain in full force till repealed or mOdi-
fed by the regular and constitutional ex-
ercise Of the legislative power.
No such laT has been or was intended TO
lI HaAeeGAA ny AAlE 44Ck-AoA1a lAEa 4AEN UaLL-
pOsely avoided it. They merely left the
subject to The people Of each county to de-
eide by ballot whether the license law
should be repealed Or not"
To make the question we consider sim
liar, the bill ought to provide that the
people BY ballot should decide whether the
license law should be repealed. No such
question is to be submitted to them. They
are to decide on the expediency of issuing
the license at the time. No power is con
ferred on them to make a rule. Whether
they grant or refuse the license, the law re-
mains the same. The Legislature may
grant ali manner Of police power to cOTpO-
ratiOns. A police power is not law, because
not prescribed by the supreme power.
Even "a Member Of the Bar ought to
know that. Mr.. Cody so decides it, and
believe every authority TO be found in the
Judicial history Of the English race, so
holds il, except 'DOminie.7 Parker vs.. /
the Commonwealth is exactly like the Del
aware case, and venture that the long list !
Of cases he Parades are alike inapplicable. |
But he says, ale Will show the fallacy Of |
the bill in a succeeding article" George |
ID. Prentice once quoted from an exchange /
that Upper was about TO publish a second /
edition Of his PrOverbial Philosophy, to /
which he replied that "The world had long 4
been afraid he would 90 and do that"
hope the public may not be alarmed at The
prospect Of a second jnstallment from "a i
Member Of the Bar If he has done
he brst that can be done with his
'legal spectacles,n he might profit by
.he use Of a pair not legal. The public
Sill be duly grateful for even a small
Improvement Of his judicial optics. "A
Member Of the Bar l believe, never read
he cases to which be refers. There is no
.uch case as Rodgers vs.. Rice, nor Packer
Is. Commonwealth. The misprint was
made in Gov. Browns message, which he
,lindly followed. The writer has carefully I
nd critically examined all the cases to
which ga Member Of the Bar" refers. Not /
me Of them decides the principle Of the LO-
al Option bill before the House to be UncOn-
titutiOHal. We have read them and know
whereof We speak. We respectfully suggest
hat "a Member Of the Bar inform him
elf before he undertakes to become the
institutional adviser Of the Legislature.
Il. f. GARDENHIRE.