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

sent vi such corporations, "A law giving
TO school districts portion of the
school fund on condition that such dis
tricis will raise all equivalent or pro-
portiOnal suh-are all instances of
proper conditional legislation, even
though the assent OF the corpOrators, in
the one case, TO the change of their
charter, or of the district. in the other.
TO accept the donation and comply with
its terms, should be signitied by a ma
jority vote. These are all good condi-
tions, capable of being performed with
ont any interfering with the legislative
will. But the law declaring an Of
tense or providing punishment, or
repeating all existing law, on condition
that the governor or any other indi-
vidual shall assent TO it, is as plainly
unc0nstitu ional. 1t is the naked veto
power. 1t substitutes for, or rather
adds to, the legislative will another
will, which it makes necessary to the
eEisteHse OF the law. This is uncon-
stitutional; no one doubts il;
no one will pretend that law
with such condition would be
good" (Per Harrington, judge, in
Rice VS.. Foster, 4 Harrington, 499.
See Parker VS.. Commonwealth, Barr,
Penn, $40; State vs. Field, II Mo-,
529; Aurora w. United States, 7
Crauch, 1922 "But this statute does
not depend upon any condition for its
force, existence or sanction. It is not
unconstitutional"
In state er rel. Dome ys. Wilcox (45
Mo-, 45S), an act was held not open to
constitutional objections which au-
thorized cities. &c, to organize for
school purposes, by vote to that Ell
feet. Wagner, j., in delivering the
opinion OF the court, cited with ap-
proval State vs.. Field, State w. Scott,
and City VS.. Alexander, smpra, and ia
the course OF his remarks said:
''The first position assumed by the
counsel tor the plaintiff in error, to in
validate the proceedings, is that the
chapter whence the authority is derived
10 not Law of its own force, enacted
by the law-inaking power of the land,
but depends for its existence upon q
vote OF the people of the locality where
| it is sought to be made operative. /"
'It is undoubtedly true that uu-
der our form OF government laws must
be enacted by the legislative bodies TO
which the legislative power is COM
United by the constitution. The legis-
lators cannot divest themselves of the
responsibility OF enacting laws by
reference OF the question of their pas.
| sage to their constituents. One OF the
earliest cases on the subject is Barto vs..
Himrod a Seld., 1887, where the legis-
| lature OF New York framed law con-
cerning free schools. The legislature
did not enact or adopt the law; but the
tenth section of the act declared that
the electors should determine by ballot,
at the next annual election, whether
the act should or should not become q
law. There it will be perceived that
the legislature merely proposed the
law, and left its enactment to the peo-
pie. The court of appeals held that
the law having never been passed by the
legislature-the only body under the
constitution that was competent to pass
q law-it was void and of no effect"
"NOw, the legislature cannot
propose q law, and submit II to the
people to pass or reject it by general
vote. That would, indeed, be legisla-
ton by the people. But the PROPOSE.
tion can not be successfully controvert-
ed that law may be passed to take et-
feet on the happening of future trust
or contingency. The future trust and
the happening of the contingency or
!; the fulfillment of a condition affords
no additional efficacy to the law, but
simply furnishes the occasion for the
exercise of the power. The law is
! complete and effective when it has pass
ed through the forms prescribed tor its
enactments, tnough IL may not operate,
} or its influence may not be felt, until a
SUBJECT mas arisen upon which 1t can
|, act ln the case we are now consider
!, ing, the ACT look enect with the other
laws contained In the statutes. 1t was
passed accordingto the prescribed forms
designated In the constitution. Its ell
actment did not depend upon any
. popular vote, but parties to be affected
i Oy 1t were at liberty to accept the priv
g ileges granted, and incur the burdens
D and obligations 1t would impose, az
. their interest or Will should dictate. II
they elected not to avail themselves OF
: us privileges, IL dlu not In the least im'
u PAIR It's force; 1t still stood valid EN-
sctment on the statute book. 1t they
oresnLeu unoet ~, they were emitted
10 ,he oehent oi us provisions; out iu
: eithef event, the law renamed the
Il same. Ihere IL no pretense, therefore
! ior saying tnat the law Is objectionable
because IL oepends Ior lts emcacy on
the vote OF the people. Ihls pom
;, must DC raieo against the plalntln II
error.
o That case has been grossly miscon
conceived. The whole OF the schoo
q law took effect and was passed at III,
q ssme session. Among the chapters o
d that law was chapter AZ. Sections
5, and l0 OF that chapter went int
!, Immediate operation. according to th'
70 express terms OF section IA: The othe
J. ana prior sections OF the chapter wer'
e only enacted in order TO admit ada
u cent territory to be attached Tor schoo
|, purposes to some city or town. The
Q law, as a Whofe, stood and wen
q luto operation whether vote wer'
II taken or not. Inc vote was mer,
70 permissible incident in the execution o.
Z the law.
. The case OF the State VS.. Binder (3s
}, Mo-, 45O), rested, perhaps, upon con-
Y siderations already adverted to i;
II State vs.. Field and City VS.. Alexander
i: supra, and, Tor the reasons there stated
- was not delegation of Legislative
II power, but law authorizing the nun
o ieipal corporation of St. Louis county
e upon vote taken to that effect, TO pass
IL All ordinance allowing the sale Oh Sun
l. day OF refreshments Distilled liquor
e excepted.) The constitutionality o
q the law OF 1857 was not touched upon
ii and the broad intimatiOn is moreover