The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1894-10-16

is " violation of Section 2 OF Article 1
OF the Constitution Of South Carolina,
which is as follows: "Slayory shall
never exist i'm this State /: neither shall
involuntary s%ervitude, except as q
punishment for crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted"
Counsel Tor the respondent did not
argue this objection, and as It has no
bearing whatever on this case, we are
constrained TO think there must have
been o mistake in it's insertion.
THE LEGISLATURE POWER OF THE
STATE.
The next objection interposed by re-
%spondent ia that the act Is In violation
OF section al of article 1 of the consti-
tuition of this State, which is as fol-
lows: "The enumeration Of rights
In this constitution shall not be CON
strued to impair or delay others re-
tanned by the people and all powers
not herein delegated remain with the
people,"
This section was construed in the
case OF State against Hayne, 4 s. c.,
42O, in such o way IS to be In accord
with the established theory Of the
State government and of the power of
the Legislature. Chief Justice Will
lard, In delivering the opinion of the
court, said "Section /, article 2,
declares that the Legislative power OF
this State shall be vested in two dis
tinct branches, the one to be styled
the Senate and the other the House
Of Representatives. and both together
the General Assembly of the State OF
South Carolina"
Although the particular office of this
section Is to fix certain important feat
ures of the body through which the
function OF legislation Is to be exer-
cised yet it describes In an authorita-
tive way the nature Of the power in
vested. 1t is no less than the legisla-
tive power of the State. 1t is not such
and s o much Of the Legislative power
OF the State a. we're intended to be
used by that particular body, but it
IA tho whole legislative power of this
State, Its whole capacity of making
laws and providing the means for their
enforcement. 1t was not intended
that the Legislature should exercise
this power without Limitation and re-
s~traint, for the constitution that uses
these words OF grant imposes many
ing the extent to which it may be
effectively exercised. The form OF
expression here employed shows that
the people of South Carolina enter
tain the same view of-the nature OF
legislative powor that Is accepted by
other similar communities and intend
ed that it should receive, in this re-
spect, the construction ordinarily put
upon grants of such powers in other
similar instruments; that is to say,
they intended q general grant OF that
branch OF governmental power and
faculty described as the Legislative
power Of the State, though subject to
many restrictions affecting its ex-
ercise. But it has been argued that
section Al OF article l narrows this
Of limited power. 1t Is said that the
powers Of the Legislature OF South
Carolina must be held to be special
and enumerated powers, like those OF
the Congress of the United States, and
that such as are not in terms granted
must be regarded as withheld and re.
tanned by the people, and that such is
the force and effect of section ii ar.
ticle 1.
After quoting the section he pro.
ceeds: 1.-THE true effect of this de.
claration is hat it reserves to the
people whatever is not granted by
the instrument as for instance, the
right to make changes in the form OF
government is not granted, and under
this clause remains with the people,
capable OF exercise when they may
see fit so to do. AS the legislative
power is granted in express terms i'm.
porting a grant of general powers,
such general power Of legislation can.
not be regarded as reserved to the
people, under this section. Such
general language as that contained
in section Al article i cannot be allowed
such force and effect as to change en-
tirely the nature Of Legislative power
and to Introduce anomalous ideas in
the structure of the government"
The very definitions of taxation,
making 1t clear that it must be for q
public purpose, showed that there was
no necessity for resort to the doctrine
of reserved limitations to declare null
aud void a tax for a private purpose
and that the court would have been
compelled to render the decision it
article l, had not been referred to at
all. A reference to section fl, article
l, was incidental only and cannot be
regarded as authority to show that
there are reserved limitations when
there was nothing in that case calling
for an adjudication of such question. :
Tho cases cited in support of the
doctrine of implied limitations upon
the legislative authority were in re-
gard to taxation, as to which it was
necessary to resort to such doctrine
for the simple reason that the very
definition OF taxation shows 1t must be
for a public purpose, and therefore an
act OF the Legislature attempting to
raise money for a private purpose is
null and void. Mr.. Tiedman, in his
limitations of police power, says
"A tax is In the most comprehensive
sense any charge or assessment levied
by the government for public pur-
poses, upon the persons, property and
privileges OF the people within the
taxing district or State" Black, G.
j., in Sharpless VS.. Mayor, &C., q
Pen. st. Reps. 100, which Is one
of tho leading cases against the
doctrine of reserved constitutional
limitations, shows that taxation neces-
sarily means tho raising Of revenue
for a public purpose. In the cases he
says: Tho Legislature has no con-
stitutional right to lay q tax or to
authorize municipal corporations to do
1T in order to raise funds for a mere
private purpose, No such authority
passed to the assembly by the general
grant OF the legislative power. This
would not be legislation. Taxation is
a mode OF raising revenue for public
purposes, When 1t is prostituted to
objects in 40 way connected with the
public interests or welfare it ceases to
no foxotio, md haoop,n, ol,~lo.y