Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1885-05-07

1
tive action.
! This being their duty, we are bound
in all eases, to presume they have re
gardcd it, and that they are clearly con
WINGED Of their power to pass a law be
fore they do. If court in such cas-
| were to annul a law, while cntertainin;
doubts upon the subject, it would presen
the absurdity Of one department of thu
government overturning, in doubt, wha
another had established in settled con
yiction, and to make the dubious con
struction of the Judiciary outweigh Tho
| fixed conclusions OF the legislative Assem-
bly,: Adams vs.. Howe, IA Mass, 3i5
In Fletcher vs.. Peck, 8 Cranch, 81
Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the
court, said: 1T is not on slight impli
cation and vague conjecture that the leg
stature is to be pronounced to have tran
scending its powers aud its acts to be
considered void. Theoppoiition between
the constitution and the laws should be
such that the judge feels clear and
strong conviction Of their incompatibility
with each other.
There is an, unbroken chain Of authori-
ties to the effect that the presumption
must always be in favor Of the validity Of
the laws, until the contrary is fully de-
monstrated: Cooper VS. Tclfair, Dali,
IA; ii Penn. state 20.
In Wellington VS. Petitioners, ETC., 16
Pick, 95, the court announced their de-
termination ''never to declare statute
void unless the nullity aud invalidity of
the act are placed in their judgement be-
you'd reasonable doubt
Authorities might be multiplied in sup
port Of this doctrine, but it is wholly un-
necessary to do so. Tested by these
rules which have been established and
recognized by the highest judicial tribu-
nails in the land, the act Of the legislature
under consideration must stand or fall.
Il is admitted that there are three ter
ritorial officers, the treasurer, controller
and attorney general, for whom the ter
ritory must provide Offices.
To tho territory belongs a valuable
law and miscellaneous library, which
wisdom and economy would say should
BE- securely kept and preserved. To the
extent, then, Of providing for these Off
GERS and for the public library, the pro-
posed building will DO for the territory,
and for public purpose, in which the
people who pay the taxes for its erection
will have an interest, aud is therefore
proper subject of legislation and for taxa
ton. 1t is not contended that there is
any prohibition so far as these require
ments are concerned. 1t il a. matt,r of
common knowledge that public buildings
are rarely constructed wholly to meet
present necessities, but are designed to
meet reasonable future demands and pur.
poses as we'll
And have not been referred to any
authority that holds that a tax FOR pub
lie building should be enjoined for the
sole reason that the proposed building
was in excess Of present necessities or dc.
mands, and feel safe in saying there is
no such authority. Il is well settled and
understood that the prosperity or expedi
ency Of law Is always matter for the
determination Of the legislature, and not
for the courts. II the legislature had
chosen to provide by law for the erection
Of building for the three territorial Of.
6cers mentioned and for the library at
cost Of $4,000 l do not know upon what
principle Of law the aid Of the courts
could have BEEN invoked to interfere
Such an act might have been improvi
dent and ill.advised, but these reasons
would net have warranted any interposi
ton by the courts. Where there is pow
er to act, and the power is regularly ex-
ercised, legislative discretion cannot be
interferted with BY the Judiciary.
It might be here observed that the du
tics and work Of the Legislature are all
performed for the territory and is work
in WHICH all the people have an interest.
The same may be said Of large proper
lion OF the business Of the supreme curt.
The general government has not, in the
Judgement Of the legislature provided
suitable public buildings to meet the de-
,pands Of the local government, and the
law Is the result OF this determination.
Congress could have abrogated the law,
but did not; nor has there been an 10
stance cited where that body has express.
" denied to the people Of q territory the
right to erect, At their own cost, any pub.
tic building. Il seems to me it would be