Sacramento daily record-union., 1881-11-12
The aooDw1s LAW.
The legislature Cannot Cut Short Cen
tences by Retroactive Inactments.

tC4CSo by t4O6St4E0 L06CtAuc<lbSs
The following decision by the Supreme
Court of the State of Nevada, recently rem
dered, exactly meets the issue concerning the
Goodwin penal Communication law of Califor-
MIA, and to the workings of which the late
Prison Investigating Commission called at
tention in its report
Ex parte John R. Darling. [0pinion by
Hawley, j Petitioner Is held in conine-
ment in the State Prison under commit
ment, Issued on the 10th day Of November,
1872, ordering him to be imprisoned for the
term Of ten years.
He claims that he is entitled to his dis
charge under the amended Act 6 for the gov
ernment of the State Prison" (approved
March l, 1881, which provides that every
convict faithfully performing such labor as
may be required Of him by the rules and reg
ulations of the prison "shall be allowed
from his term, instead and in lieu of the COM
mutation heretofore allowed by law, deduc-
tion of two months in each Of the first two
years, three months in each Of the next two
years, and four months in each Of the re-
manning years of said term" (Stat.. 1881,
109).
The Act Is in terms retroactive. It was
evidently intended by the Legislature to ap-
ply to cases before, as well as after, the LIST
day Of April, 1881. when the Act takes effect.
This is made clear by the language of the
proviso THAT of those prisoners entitled
to their discharge at the date of the passage
Of this Act, by virtue of the provisions hereof,
not more than one shall be discharged on any
one day"
Is this portion of the Act constitutional!
Does it not interfere with the Judiciary /? The
Constitution divides the powers Of the Gov
ernrnent of this State into three separate de-
partments: the legislative, executive and ju.
dicial. 1t declares in clear and explicit terms
thst mo persons charged with the exercise
of powers properly belonging to one of these
departments shall exercise any functions ap-
pertaining to either of the Others except in
the cases herein expressly directed or per-
mitted." (Con., Art. ILL
The judicial power of this State is vested
in the Courts. The trial, conviction and SEN
tence of prisoners who have violated the
laws of this State are well-known judicial
duties. Neither the Legislative nor the Ex-
ecutive Department can interfere with the
Courts in the exercise of these or other duties
which pertain exclusively to the Judicial De-
partment.
Section 81, of Article ", of the Constitu.
tion, creating Board of State Prison Com
of all matters connected with the State
Prison as may be provided by law" does not
direct or permit the Legislature, under the
pretense of regulating the discipline of the
prison, to wipe out and destroy the previous
sentences, or any portion thereof, imposed
upon the prisoners by the Courts.
The Legislature can only pass such Acts as
are authorized by the Constitution. 1t can
not infringe upon any of its provisions.
1t may be admitted, for the sake Of the argu-
ment, that the Act was framed and beneGcially
laorr 70 s,~ls 6
ON, and that it would, if allowed to be carried
into effect, produce that happy result. If so,
this argument might have had some force
with the trainers of the Constitution had it
been presented; but it is not entitled to any
weight with us if the Constitution is, as we
think it is, clear and explicit.
We have only to deal with the question Of
power. We have nothing to do with the wis.
dom or expediency Of the statute.
We are of opinion that the Act in question,
in so far as it attempts to commute any por-
ton Of the sentence imposed by the Courts
prior to the time the Act took effect, is inop-
erative and void, because it interferes with
the Judiciary.
A similar law was declared unconstitu.
tional by the Supreme Court of Pennsylva-
mia, and for the same reasons. The Court,
in passing upon this question, said: 1.-THE
whole judicial power of the Commonwealth
is vested in Courts Net fragment of it
belongs to the Legislature. The trial, con-
viction and sentencing of criminals are judi
cial duties, and the duration or period of the
sentence is an essential part of a judicial
judgment ia criminal record. Can it be
reversed or modified by Board of Prison
Inspectors acting under legislative authority?
If it can, what judicial decree is not exposed
to legislative notifications From what judi
cial sentence may not the Legislature direct
deductions to be made If this Act be con-
stitutional? What they may do indirectly
they may do directly. II they may authorize
boards of inspectors to disregard judicial SEN
tences, why may they not repeal them as fast
as they are pronounced, and thus assume the
highest judicial functions?
q II is to be observed that these questions
have no reference to the power of the Legis-
lature to prescribe general rule of law that
shall be inconsistent with q previous judicial
decree. Such rule, when it operates on
future cases and not retrospectively, is quite
legitimate. Their power to legislate in that
manner is not to be doubted. But under the
Act in question the good conduct of par
ticular individual, under judicial sentence, is
to work out for him an abatement of part
of his sentence. In respect to one of the re-
lators who was convicted and sentenced be-
fore the law was passed, it is considered very
clear that it is a legislative impairing of an
existing legal judgment" Commonwealth
VS.. johnson, 42 Penn. ST., AS
The prisoner is remanded into custody.
HAwLEY, j.
I concur LEONARD, @. J.