The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1889-03-07

cutors proper assistance in getting up
evidence and in anything else necessary
to carry on suits and prosecutions against
railroad companies, and also against their
agents and employees who control the roads
in this state, the state could furnish ample
protection to the people, without any in
Justice to the railroad companies or their
employees. The law of the land openly
declared would then be the guide of every
one, as 1t has been, and always should be.
1t is difficult to imagine how the con-
vention could have given directions to the
Legislature in more direct, plain, posi-
tive and imperative manner than they did
in shaping these provisions, without Civ
lug direct insult to the legislature, by
adding the words, underscored, land in no
other way"
Justice Moore, in the case previously
cited, said: at is legal axiom that the
Legislature cannot delegate any of its pow
ers unless authorized to do 80 by the Cou-
stitution."-43'Tex. Rep, p. SO. See also
decision by Justice Lipscomb in the
case of an act submitted to the voters of
a county for adoption or rejection.-17
Tex. Rep.
The State We. Swisher.-17 Tex. Rep,
AL.
Justice Cooley says that tone of the set
tied maxims in constitutional law is that
the power conferred upon the legislature
to make laws cannot be delegated by that
department. to any other body or authori-
ty. Where the, sovereign power of the
state has located the authority there it
must remain, and by the constitutional
agency alone the laws must be made until
the
CONSTITUTION ITSELF IS CHANGED.
The power to whose judgment, wisdom
and patriotism this high prerogative has
been entrusted cannot relieve itself of the
responsibility by choosing other agencies
upon which the power shall be devolVed,
nor can it substitute the judgment, wis
dom and patriotism of any other body for
those to which alone the people have seen
fit to confide this sovereign trust.-Con..
Linn, p. 116, with reference to numerous
authorities.)
AS to delegating power to the commits
sioners' court of a county to regulate
bridges and ferries within the county,
there is not and never has been any diff
Guilty.
Justice Cooley says: eve have else
where spoken of municipal corporations
and of the powers of legislation which
| may be and commonly are bestowed upon
! them, and the bestowal of which is not to
be considered as trenching upon the
maxim that legislative power must not
| be delegated, since that maxim is to be
understood in the light of the immemorial
practice of this country and of England,
which has always recognized the pro-
priety and policy of vesting in the mu'
nioipal organizations certain powers of
local regulation, in respect to which the
parties Immediately interested may fairly
be supposed more competent to Judge of
their needs than any central authority,
Con. Linn. PIP. lao and 225.
In addition to that, full authority has
been given in the State Constitution by
reference to the creation and powers OF
/ the commissioners court in section IS,
article 3, and the first section of article /
in relation to counties.
AS reason why there was no express
prohibition of the delegation of power to
three men to virtually take control of the
railroads of the state, would answer, in
the language of Justice Cooley, that "How-
ever proper and prudent it may be ex-
pressly to prohibit those things which are
not understood to be within the properat-
tributes of Legislative power, suob prohi-
bition can never be regarded as essential
when the extent of the power apportioned
TO the legislative department is
found on examination not to be
broad enough to cover the obnox-
ious authority. The absence of such pro-
hibition cannot by implication confer
power" (Oon. Linn. p. 210.)
1