Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-09-11
the power to determine what shall be tho law TIT

the power to determine what shall be the law. The
/ legislature only must determine what it
shall be; the courts only Muat authorttatvey
determine what it is If this act leaves it to be de-
terined by the judges that the actor any part of
it-shall take effect and become law, then IL Is vio-
lation of the principal have stated and is void
aud it does not matter that the act does not profess
IN terms to confer this power ON the judges II IL
gives it in substance and effect; it requires only an
analysis of this act to make the conclusion inevitable
whether the act Is to have any practical opera
ton at ALL is in substance left for the judges to say
If they do not act at all If they express opinion
upon the validity of the constitutional amendment,
then neither section nor SECTION Is to take eject
law; if they conclude that the amendment is in
valid then section is to be the law and section IL
MT: but il they arrived at contrary conclusion,
section is to be the law. and section is
not To put the statement In q different form tec-
ton is to 60 into effect to benome law TO estab.
or and create duties for them to perform rovided
the judges of the opinion that the legislature has
authority to enact that section, otherwise not and II
they of opinion that the legislature has no
hority to enGct section four then section is to 60
into effect, q law must rest upon the authority Of
the legislature to enact it, both Of these sections
not be law. If the constitutional amendment be
valid then the legislature could not ke section
law If 1t be invalid, the legislature could not make
section Law, and the act does not assume to de-
termine which of the laws shall be law, but leaves
In substance, IL not in form. to be determined by
the judges. In enacting law the legislature must
pass on two things. First on its authority to make
the amendment; second, on the expediency Of the
enactment 1t cannot refer either OF these questions
to the decision of anyone else, so that the enact
ment shall shall not take effect as law, according
as such decision shall be. 'r
If, by the terms of act 1t was to take effect and
be operative only In case or should think the
act expedient, surely no one would claim 1t to be
valid. To make it take effect and be operative only
in case or should think the legislature had au-
questioned that within certain limits the operation of
alegislatve act may be made to depend on future
contingency upon the happening OF some event. or
the arising Of some condition OF things-very many
laws, all of that character. But in AL such cases,
the legislature determines upon its authority to pass
the law, and that if the specified event shall happen
the condition of things described shall arise, 1t
will be expedieut that the act shall have the opera
ton provided for such event condition Of things
Bat one before ever thought that the expression
of non-judicial opinion on the authority of the
legislature to pass an act could be regarded az fu
ture contingency, upon which the effect OF the act q
law could be made to depend. We doubt If any other
such law as this ever passed We regard the act
as not only bad in principle but dangerous as pre-
cedent.
If the legislature may submit to others this pro-
vision IN the constitution affecting its legislative
authority, and make the taking effect of laws depend
on the decision, 1t may in like manner, refer any
other constitutional provision, and as there IL nothing
restrain the legislature in its choice Of the per-
to whose decision it will refer such matters, 1t
may make the reference to any person or persons,
without regard to their fitness qualifications to de-
ternine the question submitted The fact that their
choies happened to fall upon Eve persons who are
judges, inasmuch % the submission is not made to
them court and in judicial manner, cannot Of.
feet the right to submit The section and reference
should be valid had it fallen upon any other five
men. The evils which might grow
out of power in the legislature to thus
evade the responsibility of determining its
authority to pass laws the e1pediency Of passing
them, to shift fuch responsibility to any one it
might choose to designate must be apparent The
delegates to the judges the power to determine
what provision in it shall be law, power which the
legislature itself must exercise and cannot delegate.
It is therefore void. The provisions Of sections
and of the act do not effect its validity. There
be doubt that the legislature may with the con-
sent of the other party, submit ary controversy
growing out Of the business transaction Of the State
to arbitration to the extent that private persons
may. that if the State proposes q benefsction
gratuity the legislature make it depend the
suit of the inquiry and decision Of any commission
board, officer it may designate. So far as those
within the decision in Western Railroad 90. vs.. /
DeGrsff, new reports, 34l. These sections, how
sver, cannot take effect, for the whole act must fall
because of its delegation Of Legislative authority.
entirely agree with some Of the reasoning in the
opinion yet they all concur in these conclusions,
viz First, that the constitutional amendment of |
Now 6. 1850, providing that mo law levying tax or
making other provision for the payment Of interest
Dr. principal Of the bonds denominated Minnesota
State Railroad bonds" shall take effect
,r be in force until such law
'han have been submitted to vote Of the people,
lad adopted by majority of the electors of the
State voting the same. is invalid for the reason
hat it impairs the obligations of those bonds.
second, that the act Of March 2, 1881, is unconsu
utional and void because it delegates legislative
lower to the tribunal enacted by it. Third, that
writ of prohibition should issue. Let the writ Of
prohibition absolute issue, and be served by any
,ector of the State on or before the 18th day Of
september, 1881. GILFILLAN, CO..