Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1882-02-04
WHOLE NO. 2,4O8.

t power to declare an act of the legis
Q lature invalid except where the aC
S is clear and undoubted violation
: OF the organic law. Ii has oee
: said by eminent jurists everywher
= that when the courts are called up
e on to pronounce the invalidity Q
: an act of the legislature, passed il
2 all the forms and ceremonies requi
site to give it the form of law, the,
t will approach the question witt
: great caution, and will examine i
: in every possible aspect and ponde
) patient attention can throw an,
: new light upon the subject, ant
never declare statute void unles
the nullity and invalidity of the &C
, is placed, in their JUDGEMENT, be
yond a reasonable doubt; every
, reasonable doubt must be solved il
: favor of the legislative action ant
the acts sustained. Cooley Con
Lim., page 220.)
, If an act may be invalid or not
according to the circumstances, 1
court would be bound to presume
that such circumstances existed a:
rendered it valid. Talbot V. Hud
son, l6 Gray, ALI.
The constitutionality of the Law
is presumed because the Legislature
has acted, and they must conclu-
Sively be deemed to have acted in
every instance with integrity.
They are a coordinate depart
ment with the judiciary, invested
with very high and responsible du
ties, and they legisIate under the
SOlemnity of an official oath which
it is not to be supposed they will
disregard. Cooley ON Con. Lim.,
223-4,
Mr.. Cooley further says, "wheth-
er d statute Is constitutional or not
is always a question of power; that
is, question whether the legisla-
ture in particular case in respect
to the subject matter of the act, the
manner in which the object is to be
accomplished, and the mode of en-
acting it, has kept within constitu-
tionaI limits, and has observed con-
stitutional conditions.
In any case in which this ques-
ton is answered in the affirmative,
! the courts are not at liberty tG en-
quire into the proper exercise of the
power. They must assume that the
legislative discretion has been prop
erly exercised.
/ If evidence was required, il must
/ be supposed that it was before the
| legislature when the act was passed.
If any special finding was required
to warrant the finding of any par
ticular act, the passage of the act
itself would be equivalent to such
finding. And though it has some
times been urged at the bar that
the courts ought to inquire into the
| motives of the legislature where
fraud and corruption were alleged,
and annul their action if the allega-
tiOn were established, the argu-
ment has in no case been acceded to
by the Judiciary, and they have
never allowed the inquiry to be en-
tered upon.
The courts cannot impute to the
| legislature any other but public mo-
tives for their acts. People " Dra-
per, 10 n. Y, 545.
The courts are not made the
| judges of the motives of the legisla-
ture, aud they Will not usurp the
inquisitorial office of inquiry into
the bona tides of that body IN dis
charging its duties. The powers of
the three departments are not mere
ly equal, they are exclusive in re-
spect to the duties assigned to each.
They are absolutely independent of
each other. 1t is now proposed that
one of the three powers shall insti-
tute an inquiry into the conduct
of another department, and to form
an issue to try By what motives the
legislature were governed in the en-
actment of a law. If this may be
done, the courts may also inquire
by what motives the executive is
induced to approve bill Or with
hold his approval, and in case of
Withholding it corruptly to compel
its approval. TO execute the pro-
posed inquiry would be direct at
tack upon the independence of the
legislature, and a usurpation of
power subversive of the constitu-
tion. See Wright VS.. DeFrees, 8
Ind, 302; ii Ind, 424.
Can q reasonable or fair doubt be
entertained on the long accepted
all legislative power or authority is
vested in the general assembly of
the state? Has it not been held
always in Tennessee that the gener-
al assembly of the state is vested
with all legislative power not eX-
pressIy prohibited by the constitu-
ton? Has this not been the ac-
cepted doctrine everywhere and at |
all times? We may forget it, if we
can, the unbroken line Of judicial
authority on that subject, and turn
to the simple, plain, and unambig- |
uous language of the states own
constitution, which, after first re-
serving certain powers, not granted,
says: "The legislative authority |
of this state shall be vested in the |
general assembly," etc. 1t does |
not say that the legislative author
ity of this state shall be vested in
the general assembly except such
as is "contractive in its character"
but all the legislative authority of
the state is vested in the general as
sembly 1t would be strange to
hold that the general assembly was
vested complete legislative power
to enact laws regulating the rights,
liberties and lives of the people of
the state, and its motives in enact
ing these laws not to be questioned;
but when it comes to legislate con-
cerning the fiscal obligations of the
state, its motives then become the
subject of judicial inquiry.
1t is conceded that the motives of
the general assembly cannot be in-
quired into, relative to the enact
ment of municipal law, and the
only reason why this is SO is because
the legislative power of the state Is
vested in the general assembly, and
rests nowhere else.
The right to call in question the
motives of any act necessarily pre-
supposes the existence OF higher
power than the author Of the act.
When a particular power is CON
ceded TO the general assembly, what
other power exists in Tennessee
that can call in question the mo-
tives or wisdom or policy that in
duccs the exercise OF the power by
the assembly? II the motives Of
the general assembly cannot be in
quired into, in the enactment of
law, because of the SOW
ereign power of the Legislature over
the subject, on what sort of reason
can it be held that the motives of
the general assembly may be chal-
lenped where the legislature is di-