The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1888-01-21
:Weeklg gatelliaeater.
OFFICIAL CITY AND COUNTY PAPER.
CONTINUED from first page.l

such districts may decide whether they
Will accept the incorporation OF will
assume tho burdens. This is the pre-
valling rule in reference TO local meas
ures. But in all these cases, the legis-
lature had enacted a complete and
valid law, according TO the prescribed
usages governing the passage of laws,
and the happening of the contingency
of the future event, which furnishes
the occasion for the exercise of the
power, gives no additional efficacy TO
the law itself. 1t derives its whole
rigor and vitality from the ex-
ercise OF the legislative will, and
not from the vote of the people. But
nobody but the legislature can make
or repeal u law"
Alter discussing and stating the sub
stance of the authorities in Barto VS..
Hlmrod, 8 N. Y, 4S3; Rice vs.. Foster,
/ Harr, 479; Parker VS. Com, 6 Penn.
St.,6O7 and Stale VS.. Morris, SO NJ. ,72,
and giving his assent to the principles
they announce, Judge Wagner further
says:
"When the people, through the con-
stitution. delegated the law making
power to the legislature, il conferred
an authority and imposed a duty which
could not be exercised by any other
body OF men. Therefore, every law,
to have any binding force or validity,
must, when 1t emanates from the legis-
lative body, have the form and charac.
ter OF a complete enactment. 1t must
operate by virtue Of the legislative au
thority, and not depend upon popular
action ~ the peoples suffrages for It's
vitality. IL the law is regularly en-
acted according TO the prescribed forms
OF legislative procedure, it may well
be allowed TO depend upon contingent
cies for its operation upon classes or
localities, but it cannot be made to de-
pend Tor its existence upon IL other
than the legislative will. Is the law
we are now considering in reference 10
the restraint OF animals q valid law, or
~ 1t q mere proposition 10 the people
OF certain counties to make it law il the
see proper to do SO? 1t is very evident
that 1t can have no existence or obli-
Katory force unless the same be impart-
ed to II by q vote OF the people. The
title TO the act does not purport to be
the title of a general law or of a legis-
lstiVe enactment, but ii declares that II
II an act TO prevent domestic animals
from running ut large in those counties
which, by q majority vote, may decide
To agree thereto; not an act of the
Legislature, but all act OF the counties
which may In reality adopt it. The
title 10 u fair index and exponent of the
true intent and meaning of the law.
The first section provides that the
county court of any county may sub
init to the voters the question of re-
straining domestic animals, and then il
is declared in the second section that,
If a majority Of the voters in any coun-
ty is in favor of the restraint, then il
shall be unlawful III that county for
animals to run ut large according to
the provisions of the third section. The
fourth section prohibits the county
court from ordering q special election
for the adoption of the law oftener
than once in each year. In other words,
this last section gives the voters of each
county the authority, once in each year
to determine whether they will enact
u law Tor their special benefit. If they
decline, under the provisions of the
first aud secoud sections, to legislate OIL
the subject, then the law has no exis-
tence.r
From these quotations from the adj
publications of this court, it will be
readily seen that they are in entire har-
mouy with each other. The rule to be
deduced from them is plainly this:
That in certain classes of cases, as al
ready mentioned, relating to mere local
or municipal objects, it is perfectly
competent for the legislature. by a law
complete nitself-one denouncilg PEN
allies for its viOlation-to submit to
the people of certain localities to de-
termine by their votes whether some
small. minor regulation, incident to,
but not necessary to, the existence of
the iaU itself, shall be adopted. But If
the law 10 not complete; II it has no
self. enforcing penalty when it leaves
the hands of the Legislature; if it is .
mere proposal to the people of certain
localities to determine whether certain
printed matter which appears on the
statute books shall become a law or
no, then such a proposal is q clear del
egation of legislative power, and for
that reason is unconstitutional. The
long and the short of the matter is this:
That while the law may call the vote
Of the people into existence, the rote Of
the people cunnot call The iaU
mo GLL0tCHCC. Inc ttW UtuU uu-
Morlze the UOte. bit the cote caRnO
mark that the legislature may pass a
certain law complete in itself, and sub
init certain incidents thereofto q popular
yote-incidents not at all affecting the
vitality or validity OF the law itself-is
subject TO those constitutional restric-
tions as TO local or special laws already
noted. The rule announced in this
state rs to the character of laws which
cross the boundary line defining the
legitimate exercise of legislative power
from that where such power is dele.
gated il fully sustained by the great
current of authority elsewhere. In
Barto vs.. Himrod, . N. Y, 4S3, Rug
giles, &. j., SAID.
"The act Of lS49 does not, on it's face,
purport to be q law as ii came from
the hands of the legislature tor any
other purpose than to submit to the
people the question whether its pro-
visions in relation to free schools
should or should not become a law,
Csection 10, and by section IA the act
was to become law only in case ii
should have q majority OF the votes of
abe people In its favor. Without con-
trRdicting the express terms of the 10th
and l4th sections, il cannot be said hat
tbe propositions contained in 1t in rela-
ton TO free schools were enacted as
law by the legislature. They were not
law, or to become law, until they had
received a majority OF the votes of the
people ut the general election in their
favor, nor unless they received such
majority. 1t results, therefore, una
yoidably, from the terms of the act
itself, that il was the popular vote
which made the law. The legislature
prepared The plan or project, and sub
nitted it to the people to be passed or
rejected.
The legislature had no power to
make such submission nor had the peo-
Die the power TO bind each other by
acting upon it. They voluntarily sur
rendered that power when they adopt
ed the constitution. The government
OF This state is democratic; but IL is 8
representative democracy, and in pass.
ing general laws the people act only
through their representatives in the
LEGISLATURE. 1t is not denied
that a valid statute may be passed to
take effect upon the happening OF some
future event, certain or uncertain. But
sueb a statute, when it comes from the
hands of the Legislature, must be law
lu DresenH to take OBJECT IN future. II
the observations already made are cor
rect. the act Of 1S49 was not such a
statute. But If, by the terms of the
,ct. Il had been declared TO be a law