The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1888-01-28
objection. 1t assumes The character Of


bid the legislative department Of the
state from delegatlng it's authority will
also forbid its passing any irrepealable
law. The constitution, in comforting
the legislative authority, has prescribed
to its exercise any limitations W hich the
people saw tit to impose, and no other
power than the people can superadd
other limitations. To say that the
Legislature may pass irrepealsble laws
is to say that 1t may alter the very
constitution from which it derives its
authority; since, In SO far as one leSis-
lature could bind subsequent one by
its enactments, il could in the same
degree reduce the legislative power of
its successors; and the process might
be repeated until, one by one, the
subjects of legislation would be exclud-
ed altogether from their control, aud
the constitutional provision that the
legislative power shall be vested in
two houses would be, to q greater or
less degree, Intellectual" Cooley,
Con. Linn, LAG, 9th ed.)
According to section Of the act, the
result OF the vote determines the law
for that locality for four years, to be
re-enacted in the same way, totes
QUOTES, the four years limit expires.
II the legislature could not in direct
| terms give such a law such lease Of
Immortality, can the people by their
votes do more?
But it may be said that section z
may be rejected aud the residue of the
act be left valid and intact. Some
times this may be done. In such in
stances the valid may stand and the
invalid fall. Looking at this entire
| act, however, and considering, ss We
may, its legislative and current history,
1t seems difficult to entertain any other
opinion than that it was adopted by
the people of different localities as Q
settlement for four years, at least, Of
the question agitating the public mind,
and that, but for the belief that q set >
tlement for that period was affected by
their votes, the act would not have
enlisted majorities either tor or against
1t. In such cases as these. where the act 10
passed as An entirety, the invalid
is so blended with the valid, that both
must perish together. (Slinger vs.
Henneman, SO Wis, 504; Cooley, Con.
| Linn, 2lS; Warren VS.. Mayor, etc. 2
Gray, 81; Slanson vs.. City, Is Wis,
S9S; State cZ rel. Walsh Va. Dousman.
2S To-, 54l; State ez rel. Huston W.
Comm's, 8 Ohio ST., 497; Sedg. on
Stat. and Const. Law, 4l4; Csmpan vs..
Detroit. IA Mich, 276; Lathrop vs.
Mills, 10 Cal, 513.)
| 10. Ii, as seems to me is quite obvi-
Gus, a general law could have been
passed to accomplish the ends desired
by the one being discussed, then such
law should have been passed; and
this, under the plain terms of the CON-
stitution, 1t was the express duty of the
legislature to do. And whether this
could have been done is made judicial
question, and thus open to review by
the courts. (Art. Nv, sec. 53, Const.)
II. Even if general law on the
subject could not have been passed,
this would not authorize q local or
special law to be passed, save In the
precise mode pointed out by the con-
stitution.
To recspitulste:
1.-The act is unconstitutional, be-
cause incomplete and having no sano-
ton when II left the hands Of the legis-
ture, and was, therefore, delegation
of legislative power.
2-Unconstituti0nal, because II sus-
ponds the operation Of general laws in
particular localities.
|ShoohsAtusiOuhly UeCaub0 u lOCek
or special law, not passed a. provided
In the constitution In respect 10 such
laws.
4-Unoonstitutional, because It oper-
, ates as a partial repeal of general
law, and thus converts the general law
into q local or special one.
5-Unc0nstitutional because an ire
: pealable law, and it 10 apparent from
the law itself, and from its legislative
and current history, that il would not
have been adopted but as a whole, and
but for such irrepealable clause.
6-Unconstitutional, because 1t varies
, the punishment inflicted for crime
against the state by vote of the ma
jority OF the people of particular local.
4 tiles.
-Unconstitutional, because it thus
denies to the citizens of certain local.
Q tiles In this state, "the equal protection
D OF the laws" and in doing so violates
!, the first section of the Fourteenth
amendment of the federal constit ution.
S-Unconstitutional, because il vio-
. lates section So, Art. ", of the con-
stitution, which forbids the legislature
v by local or special law to regulate
. the Affairs Of counties, cities, &C., or
:. to change the charter OF cities.
9-Unconstitutional, because a gen.
eral law could have been passed.
,, Some weeks ago, the foreging dis
senting opinion, with slight modifics-
= tiona, was submitted to my associates.
a. the opinion OF the court. This will
account for the shape in which nv
r views are therein presented.
= = On Friday last, the prevailing opin-
: ion was read and adopted. was not
:, SO fortunate as to be present at any
discussion of that opinion. On FRI
= : day night last was allowed tho privi-
= lege OF examining that opinion. The
:, short time allotted me for doing this
must be my excuse for making, in .
: somewhat hurried manner, my COM
ments thereon.
a The assertion made, and set forth at
|, large in the majority opinion in refer
. ence to the presumptive validity OF
/, legislative acts, l shall not waste time
@ to discuss. as readily accept its gen.
a eral correctness as would similar OBJ
I servations respecting the multiplica =
, ton table. The question here is not
a whether the legislature generally con-
r forms Its enactments to constitutional
q requirements, 6ut Whether IL has done
. so IN this particular instance.
0 ll-Respecting the "Wood Law" being
' q delegation Of legislative power, |
: have at much pains given . resume of
Z the authorities on that subject. | main
9 tain its absolute correctness. Though
Q Locke's Appeal (72 Pa. st., 49l) makes
mention in tho head notes that Parker
, vs. Com, is ouerruled, the opinion itself
a shows just the contrary. Indeed, the
second quotation have made from
> that opinion pictures tOith anticipatory
II fdelts the "Wood LaW" And, on
|, examination OF the other authorizes 1
y have cited from our sister states, 1t will
= be found that majority of them are in
y entire accord with those of this court.
r Thus, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Del.
. aware, Indiana, Iowa, New York, Cal
n itornis, Connecticut, Mississippi aud
. Texas, and to this list may be added
:, the case of Bancroft vs.. Dumas (2I
4 Vt.,) aud the case Of Singer vs Henne-
man (SS Wis, 504) bears q very close
. resemblance to State VS.. Field, supra.
;, Arrayed against this list of states are
4 those OF Maryland, Kentucky, Georgia,
4 Illinois. and the case of State vs.. Park
/ er, 6u VT, supra. do not regard the
i. authorities cited from Minnesota, Mas
# sschusetts, or New Hampshire as at all
q opposed to the doctrine OF Lammert
a vs.. Lidwell, supra. Nsr, for similar
a Il hs.,lr III I.aA