The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1888-01-21

localities had bcru a7ccrtained and |
named III the act Itself. Courts Ui
Justice cannot permit thai 10 be done
DH an IndIrcCtiOn which could not be |
done by direct method of procedure,
cannot permit constitutional prOhi-
billions 10 be evaded by dressing up
%pect"l 5nDs in the gUIb and gUiSe Oi
9cHcTat StniUtcS.n Estate vs.. Hermann,
ID Mo-, 3IU.D
!. II have been correct in holding
the Wood Law" Il local or special one,
then II follows that it also violates two
nther prohibitions of section 63, atOre-
said, by "regUating tho affairs OF
counties, cities, etc and by changing |
the charter of cities
,. The "Wood Law" is also obnoxi
Gus to the constitutional objection that |
il lranscends the bounds Of Legitimate |
legislation i'll another particular: 1t |
subjects certain dram shop Keepers,
who reside iii localities where the law |
referred 10 has been adopted, to idryer |
HHcS Hitd gre0ier DWntSjtmcntS than
those inillctcd on persons OF the same |
class who live III other counties or
localities. Frequently the new law, in
It's operation, viii be sharply contrasted
with the old one in practically the same
toc@lHy aud frequently in the same
| cOWnty, separated by but the narrow
boundary which divides county from
| city, or county from county. Thus,
Under the Old law, the highest punish
| mcnt which could be Inflicted Tor sell
| ing an ounce of whiskey, would be a
| fine of 5000: but in those counties and
| localities where the new law is in force
the fine could not be less than $500,
while il might be 81 900, as well as All
| imprisonment tor twelve months. Can
such law, partial as il is, stand the
test of judicial scrutiny! Can the
Legislature, as PurCHS pdtTi0c with
| jmpnrttUi hHnd and for the SuDle
| OBcnSc. inilicl on one man Il light
penalty, aud on his nert-dDOr neiyhbOi'
4 he0ry punishment! Speaking of such
avs, Judge Cooley says: "But a
statute woald no. be constitutional
which should select partic-
ular individuals from Il class or locality,
and subject them to peculiar rules, or
impose upon them special obligations
or burdens from which others in the
same locality or class are exempt.
But every one has a right to
demand that he be governed by gen
cral rules, and special statute which.
without his consent, singles his case
out as Que To be regulated by differ
ent law from that which is applied in
all similar cases, would not be legiti-
mate legislation, but would be such all
arbitrary mandate as is not within the
province OF Tree government. Those
who make The laws are to govern by
promulgated, established laws, not TO
he varied IN particular cases, but 10
have one rule Tor rich aud poor, for the
: tavOritc 1T cOurt aud the cOumtryman
at plough This is 4 maxim in con
suLutional law and by il we maytest the
q authority and binding force of iegisla-
Z tive enaGtmrnts. (COu. Linn. ABB ) }
{ Discussing such q law, Judge Cairol
: said: The rights OF every individual
4 must stand or tall by the same rule oI
law that governs every other member
, of the body polite, or land, under
u similar circumstances; and every par
II tial or private law which directly pro
poses 10 destroy or affect indiyidua
II rights, or does the same thing bS
!. affOrding remedies leading 10 simila
consequences, is unconstitutional aut
II SOid. Were it otherwise, OdiOu&
u individuals aud corporations would b'
IL governed by one law; the mass OF th
l. community and those who made tn
= law, by another; whereas the lik
= 9euerai law, affecting the whole com
e muniiy equally, could not have beer
If passed. (Waiiy Heirs ys. Kennedy
y Gcrg, jjI) 70 the same effect i
- Bull W ConrOc, - VIE. ,233, and case
lc cited.
le q. The "W oud Law is also open f
D the charge that in certain localitie
K where II bears sway il denies 10 thOs
Is resident therein ''the eYuHi prOteciio
ie ~ lie MtCS,' Tins violating section l y
l. the lIth amendment 10 the FEEDERS
T. Constitution. In Stale vs.. iiayes 6
D. Mo-, 514), that section was passe
;. upon, and 1t was ruled that aithOug
lc il was competent for the legislature, b
II u general law, to repeal all of the pro
IL vislOas reiatin" 10 change OF venue II
criminal CAUSES, vel thar the iagislatur
lr could not pass law tor such change
80 OF venue which should be genera
n throughout the state, with claus
le iorbidding its benefits TO be enjoyed b
N the citizens of St. Louis; and that tn
rs result was precisely the same whethe
l. such 4 law was passed in the first i'll
r. stance or whether, by subsequent ley
SC islaIiom, the same deprivation of til
z. right elsewhere enjoyed, occurred
he Under the operation OF the new law
nj one WHO violates its provisions is de
SO prived OF his rights recognized i'll othe
T. localities and protected by the genera
ty law of the state, 10 tie extent that III
er punishment NndcF tie RcW Mm erceeo
y, that ofthe oM II such legislation Il
ri this is valid, th0n | confess | can Sc
A | az ,,IS II
H. Ter, rape, GUryl0Iy, elc punished
'T as many various ways rs the voters /
er an equal number OF localities may, b
III virtue of their uewlyfound law
ne making function, determine. My pos
y ton Oh this poiut is, shortly this: The
H. Il crane against the Stutc can only con
V, sist in Il violation OF some public or gei
oi cru IaW---a law co-cXtensive with tl
he boundaries 0f the state which euacts i
81 a Blacklist, ,; City of Kansas .. Clarl
e. 6S Mo-. 5SS.) and OF course uniform i
hc its operation and equally binding o
e. every member OF the communit
Throughout; those boundaries. ANY
r- tnin. less tnan thiS is not public {
or general, but partial, local or speci,
h lava law under which no one can l.
~ prosecuted and punished on Tie man
OF ~ me Nttt " itllDul IL Nlpitbloh I
he constitutional prohibitions and guaral
al ICES. (Wnlly 5 Heirs VS.. Kennedy
II Sapra)
er Z. The point next for determinatio
he is wheIncr the Wood Law" is
Z" delegation ul legislative power.
~ my conclusions on previous points b
~ correct, the discussion of thi
n point is immatcrial, but u
40 it is fairly presented, it is proper tha
ii it should be discussed. Treating oi Ih
a. subject uf the delegation of sue
* power, Nj. Justice Cooley remarks
lc 'One of the settled maXims i'll con
/! stituliUnai law Is, that The power con
IL frrrrd upon the legislature to max
laws canuot be delegated by tha
so department to any other body q
he authority. Where the sovereign powe
Z. OF thc state has located the authorit
ne there it must remain; and by til
Il, constitutional agency alone the law
OF must uG made until the cOnsiitntio
Pa itself is changed, The power TO who's
i'll Judgment, wisdom and patriotism til
al high prcrogaIiVc has been Cntruste
"a: cannot relieve Itself of the responsible
il ity by choosing other agencies upo
y, which The power small be devolved. n'
cr ~an il substitute the Judgment, wisdom
II and patriotism ol ANY other body IL
% those 20 which alone the prople hay
II" seen iii to coniidr the sovereign trust.
= CCon. Iim !j9 Ca the san.c pom
he Davis e. J .&y.r ".rnH maxim WhlC