Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1882-02-04

legislative power, Ino people mus
, be understood to have conferred th
full and complete power as it vest
: in and may be exercised by the Soy
} ereign power of any country, sui
ject only to such limitation as. the
may have imposed in their stat
, constitution, and to their l1mita
: tiOnS which are contained in tn
constitution of the United States.
The legislative department is no
made special agency for the eXel
else of specifically defined legisla
tive powers, but is intrusted will
, the general authority to make law
at discretion" Cooleyb constitu
: tional limitations, 1867.
1t is the settled rule in this state
as in the United States generally
that the legislature has unlimited
power of legislation, except only 81
far as it is restricted by the constitu
ton of the state and the Unitet
States.
| Mr.. Chief Justice Redgeld, in tht
case of Thrope, VS.. Rutland & Bur
lington r. r. Co., 9th VT, says
1t has never been questioned so fal
as know, that the American legis
latures have the unlimited power
in regard to legislation which re
sides in the British parliament ex
cept when they are restrained by
| written constitution. That must
be conceded, l think, to be a funda.
mental principle of the organization
OF the American states. We cannot
we'll comprehend upon principle
how it should be otherwise. Phe
people must of course have pos
sessed all legislative power original
ly. They have committed this in
the most unlimited manner to the
state legislatures, saving only such
restrictions as are imposed by the
constitution of the United States,
and of the particular states in ques-
ton.
Judge Cooper of our own supreme
court, in the case of Davis VS.. the
state, Sd Lea, 377-7, says: The leg
islative department is not made a
special agency for the exercise of
specifically defined legislative pow
ers, but is entrusted with general
authority to make laws at discre-
tiOn. They who insist upon the
unconstitutionality of an act must
point out the specific provision of
the constitution which is violated.
The court can only interfere upon a
plain violation of some provision of
organic law.
!; Whether a statute is contrary to
the genius of a free people" is a
question for the Legislators and not
the judge. 1t cannot be annulled
upon the supposed natural equity,
the inherent rights of freemen, or
on any general or vague interpreta-
tion of a provision of the constitu-
ton beyond its plain and natural
import"
'EOf the wisdom of the legislation
the law-inaking power is the eXclu-
sive Judge. Our duty is to enforce
it if not vioIative of the organic
law" Davis VS.. state, 377, $50.
Again Judge Cooper, in deliver
ing the opinion of the court in the
case of Luehrman VS.. Taxing Dis
trlct, I'd Lea, 1889, says:
"The legislature has the power to
do whatever is not expressly, or by
necessary, forbidden by the consti-
tuition. 1t is for that body
to determine as the direct represen-
tative of the people what the public
good requires; the court can only
interfere when the legislature has
violated the constitution, not other
wise.
1.-THE courts are not at liberty to
declare an act void because it is in
their opinion opposed to spirit
supposed to pervade the cOnstitu-
ton, but not expressed in words;
this is spirit which is most diff
cult to materialize, even by the
most skiIlful judicial expert; when
ever a legislature fresh from the
people, with an unlimited fran
chise, departs from democratic
usage, the public exigency must be
great which demands SO unusual
remedy. The courts have no right to
interfere unless there has been
violation of the organic law"
Luckman vs.. Taxing District, I'd
Lea, 1889.
Mr.. Justice Mclean, in the case
of the state of Ohio VS.. Knood, 16
Howard, 397, in speaking of the
alleged want of consideration for
certain exemptions which the state
of Ohio had granted certain bank
ing corporations of that state, says:
"Whether the consideration paid
by the banks was large or small, is
not a matter for the court, as the
motives or considerations which
induced a sovereign state to make
a contract cannot be inquired as af-
fecting the validity of the act"
Again, in the same ease, he says:
"And of the sufficiency of the con-
sideration the legislators would be
the exclusive judges-much stress
was laid, in the argument, on the |
fact that the banks paid no bonus,
and that no contract can be binding |
which is not mutual. But this is a |
matter which can have no influence
in deciding the legal question. 20 |
Wend., 381.
at is its peculiar duty to keep
the first lines of the constitution
in order to correct legislative or eX-
abuses.
Every branch of the government,
the Judiciary included, does injus-
tice, for which there is no remedy,
because every human thing Is inn
perfect"
Mr.. Justice Black, of the supreme
court of Pennsylvania, in the case
of Sharpless V. the Mayor, etc., 2lst
Penn, l47-I62, reviewing this SUBJ
ect in a very able and elaborate
opinion says:
"We are urged to hold that law,
though not prohibited, is void if it
violate the spirit of our institutions,
Dr. impairs any of those rights which
it is the object of free government
to protect, and to declare it uncon-
stitutional if it be wrong and un-
ust. But we cannot do this. 1t
would be assuming right TO
change the constitution to supply
what we might conceive to be its
lefects, and to interpolate into it
in our opinion, ought to
have been put there by its trainers.
The constitution has given us
list of things the legislature may
not do. If we extend that list we
alter the instrument; we become
ourselves the aggressors, and violate
Doth the letter and spirit Of the Or
yanic law as grossly as the legisla-
lure possibly could.
If we can add to the reserved
rights of the people, we can take
-hem away; il we can mend, we
IAN mar; if we can remove the