The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1888-01-28

and majority of the votes cast be |
against prohibition the provisions of |
chapter Ga of therevision remain in |
force, 'and this amendatory act shall be |
null aud void in such county,
"Under section 1888 of the revision,
the sale of beer il lawful. The act OF |
1870 makes the sale of beer unlawful
The effect OF a vote in favor of the |
act of 1870 Is to adopt a provision in
direct conflict with section 1858, aud |
hence to repeal it by necessary impli-
cation. In GeebrIck vs. The State,
supra, 1t is held that "a law can no
more be repealed than it can be made |
by the vote OF the people, The act of
1870 further provides :-'Section = Of
chapter l54 of the laws of the Twelfth |
General Assembly iS hereby repealed,
so far as it relates TO counties adopting |
the provisions of this act, but TO none |
other 1t is apparent that this repeal |
ing clause can be vitalized only by the |
vote OF the people. Without such vote
it remains lifeless and Inactive"
Looking at section of the "WoOd |
Law 1t will be found possessing in
its consequences every element of
similitude and none of unlikeness to
the statute of lowa--the votes of a
majority, in either case, causing tho
repeal or non-repeal OF existing laws.
The case of Dalby vs. Wolf, Ii Iowa,
22S, decides nothing to the contrary of
the other cases from that state already
cited, but cites two of the earlier cases
with approval; and the law was per-
feet and complete. In State vs.. Will
cox, AZ Conn.,, 364, the law was COM
plete when it left the legislative hall,
and was substantially the same as that
passed upon in New Jersey, heretofore
noticed.
The act passed upon in Boyd VS..
Bryant, So Ark, 50, prohibited, under
penalty, the sale OF Intoxicating
liquors within three miles of any col
lege, ETC., and the act took effect III
ninety days, etc. The fourth section OF
the act provided how tho fact of the
location of a college within the pres.
cribed limits was TO be ascertaiucd;
this was by petition, signed, etc, and
the law was held constitutional, and
properly SO held, under previously
cited authorities.
In California tho rule against the
delegation of legislative powers has
been rigidly enforced. (Houghton vs..
Austin, AZ Cal, 646). In 1874 an act
was passed providing tor vote to be
taken upon the question OF "hquor
license" or no s'liguor license" and if
the vote should be "againsL license"
that, in that event, it should be unlaw
full and punishable by fine and impris-
onment to sell, etc. The law was held
unconstitutional, because of being Il
delegation of legislative power, Nc
kinstry, j., saying:-
at is argued, however, that for the
legislature to enact that q law shall
take effect, provided the people of the
state, or OF district, shall vote In
favor OF ii, is not to delegate the law
making power. This position has been
upheld by courts of high character, bnt
| think the decisions in which it has
been denied are sustained by the better
reasons. But it does not
follow that a statute may be made to
take effect upon the happening OF any
subsequent event which may be named
in it. The event must be one which
shall produce such change of circum-
stances as that the law makers, i'll the
exercise Of their own ] ldgnent, can
declare it to be wise and expedienl
that the law shall take effect when the
event shall occur. The Legislature
cannot transfer to others the RESPONSE.
bility of deciding what legislation il
expedient and proper, with reference
either to present conditions or future
. contingencies. To say that the legisla
, tors may deem law TO be expedient
provided the people shall deem ii
expedient, is 10 suggest all abandon
ment OF the legislative function by
those to whose wisdom and patriotism
tho constitution has intrusted the
, prerogative of determining whether .
law is or is not expediemt. Can it be
said in such case that any member oj
the legislature declares the prohibition
or enactment to be expedient! Ga
Da,te Wall, AZ Cal, 279.)
1t 10 claimed that the case just cite(
, was overruled by that of People &c rel
, Love VS.. Nally, 49 Cal, 47S. This il
an error. The subject there discussed
, was whether All act was valid which
directed q vote to be taken in a Ger
tain county. whether another count,
} was to be dismembered, a portion of i
f annexed to the county first named, anl
I a portion to another county, and tn,
, act has held valid, on the ground OF 1T
being Il local statute, matter OF ''pure
, Iy local concern" and the case OF 9:
parte Wall was distinguished. Ii
Texas, upon similar act as that men
{ toned in As Cal, supra, a simila
ruling was made.
, In Massachusetts statute was hell
3 valid which permitted cities to deter
, mine by vote whether liquors SHOULD
be sold therein But in that case th
+ matter was treated as local polio,
regulation within that class o
q powers which the legislature coult
, bestow on cities by express Legislative
/, enactment, to be exercised either by
vote of the city council, or by a vot,
:, of the inhabitants. (Com. VS.. Burnett
los Mass. 27.) But it is to be observed
that the statute there was complete aut
,, perfect. In State va. Noyes, 10 Foster
279, u statute in regard to bowling
alleys in cities was upheld on the
, ground of it's being in the nature o
; local legislation, such as the legislatur,
! might authorize cities TO pass, or might
in the first instance, pass directly
proUicied such iOcdL regulations Wer
n consistent tCith The general ialOS Of III
:, state.
, The ease of People VS.. Reynolds,
!, GILL, |, related merely to the division
, of an old county anu the formation o
, o new one, which division was left {,
a be decided by a majority vote nf thos
= directly interested, and this ruling wa
. correct on the rule laid down in Stat
. vs.. Scott, supra.
> The law i'll that case, as well as tina
ne Unnnln SnIpnnn al IN Wn
!. complete, ,and was SO stated to be in tn,
, last named case, which was one il
regard to levying special tax for tn
improvement, etc OF South Park
Whether such tax was TO be levied wa
. made dependent on the acceptance q
- the act manifested by majority vote
etc. and the act was held valid.
In is..nnger vs.. Bonean, H., 81, th
| court seems to have gone further an
upheld a stock law which was not "Ic
be in force until the same shall b
Q ratified by q majority vote OF tho pao
e pie of the county" A lc0Yu ~, liimrr
1 50 Miss., 652, was one iuvol, ing tn
. constitutiOnality of levee tax, the lay
!. authorizing the same submitting to tn
@ voters of the tax district the questio
D OF levying the tax. That was done b
J. the first section of the act. But by
9 subsequent section of the same &C
y provision was made"tur the assessment
u aud collection OF Il TAX, IN certai
!, named counties i'll the leveo district
n over and above the Tax provided for /
d the first section, and directs its appro
v priatIonr In All able discussion of tn
: subject, Smith, q. j. said in the cours
If of his remarks Rppr0viugly citing tn