The Russellville Democrat., 1879-03-13

lzszr szzxzasrznrzsl tion. the popular will should not bc consulted, nor why 1t may not be constitutionally left to the County urtethe lawfully created agency,
 representing and acting for the local public, to be immediately effected by the liquor traffic to make the order as prov olIded by the act, when ever the
 popular will is expressed in the modes. pointed out by tine act. What has
 been delegated to the people by this act of the ligIslaturei Certainly not power to make law, for when this act left the halls of legislation, and
 was approved by the executive itwas then a law, perfect aud complete
 within itself The people, in declar- ling their acceptance of it's provisions in the mode designated by the act, declared no consequences, prescribed
 no penalties and exercised no legis lative functions. A valid law may be passed to take effect upon sthe happening of an event, even when that event involves the assent to it's
 provisions by other parties. Mayor of Baltimore vs. Church ct al 23, Md. 462; Brig. Aurora vs. United States
 Cranch 3S2. In the case of Bull
 ys. Read, 18th, Graft SS, the court says it will not be questioned, that it is entirely competent for the legis- Iature to provide for taking q vote
 of the people, or any number of them upon measure directly affecting
 them, and if q given number be in favor ot it's adoption, to enact law
 thereupon carrying it into effect, and there would seem to be but little difference in substance, in a reversal of the process, by first enacting Q law complete in all it's parts, but providing that it's operation Is to be suspended until it be ascertaiuea that the requisite number of the peo-
 pie to be effected by it were in favor of it's adoption. Counsel for defend
 ant have, with marked ability, urged | . that legislation which characterizesN the act in question is wise. inexpe dient and impolite. As to the wis dom, policy or expedlency of such legislation, this court is not author ized to judge, these are questions which, in our representative system of government, are exclusively con fined to the legislative department and so long as that department of tue government acts within the scope ot its constitutional authority, this court has no power to sit in judgment on the wisdom, policy or expediency of its action. The ques- tion with which we are dealing be !" ing one involving the constitution alty of statute, l have endeavored ir the examination of it to keep in view the principle which must al
 ways govern the court, when called upon to pass upon the constitution
 ality of the acts of coordinate de- pal tment of the government that is, that every IntendmeLt ought to be made in favor of the conssitatio1al- ity of laws passed by the legislature, and that such laws ought not to be declared unconstitutiOna and invalid except. for the plainest and most conclusive reasons, and that the courts ought not to adopt a doubt ful construction for the purpose of invalidating them. When the leg islature is not inhibited it has gener- al power to legislate. And 1 fail to discover wherein the act in question is in violation of the con stitutionsof Arkansas adopted 1874, nor any other grounds to justify the court in declaring the act under consideration unconstitutional and imperative. The local option sta tute under consideration, in my opinion, is not at variance with either the letter or spirit o. theConstitution of Arkansas. And it appearing to be founded in reason and supported-s by the clear weight of authority, the demurrer is orerruled.
 xa