The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-12-12
MIR. BYNUM BEGINS.
Holds that Power Of Legislature over
the Subject In Unlimited.


Said Mr.. Bynum I'm beginning: This
case was brought by appellee In the court
below against the appellants as the clerk.
sheriff and auditor OF sullivan county to
restrain them from discharging their duties
prescribed by the election laws. under the
apportionment act OF 1876, and TO require
them to perform those duties under the
act or 1s93 The ground on which this re-
lief is asked is that the act Of 1896 was
not passed at the regular sextenniai period
as provided by the Constitution OF the
State OF Indiana 1t is claimed the direc-
ton TO the Legislature 10 make an appor-
tonment every six years is a limit upon
the power OF the Legislature. IL Is well
settled that the courts will not set aside
acts OF the Legislature unless the asser.
ton they have exceeded their authority 10
clearly. papably and directly proven"
Mr.. Bynum read a number of authorities
holding that the courts viii sustain the
acts Of the Legislature unless IL Is clearly
shown the acts passed are in direct con-
hict with the Constitution. He also cited
authorities showing the courts must pre-
sumo the acts of the Legislature
to be constitutional unless IL is shown TO
the contrary. LET us discuss the special
questions that ARISE I'm the discussion OF
this case" Mr.. Bynum continued. ~
clear discussion OF the question in con-
rroversy requires that we should Keep
constantly in mind the difference bet x.sen
the characters or the federal and state
governments. The federal government Is
one OF delegated powers. Complete SOW
ereignty resided originally i'm the people
OF the States. The people OF the States.
originally I'm possession OF full and COM
plete sovereignty. necessarily retained con-
troll OF all that which not granted
to the general government. In orsansza-
tion. of their state government the people
conferred upon the legislative departments
all legislative power not delegated
to the federal government. restricted by
the express WORDS or necessary implication
of the State Constitution.
1--WE, therefore, search the federal Con-
stitution TO ascertain what powers have
been granted TO the federal government.
while we look to the provisions OF the
State Constitution 10 see what restrictions
have been placed upon -tne legislative
power OF the General Assembly
FEDERAL AND STATE POWERS
..The powers granted TO the federal gov-
ernment were necessarily general in terms.
| and therefore, carried with them implied
| powers of vast extent But not so with the
State governments. The grant of a power
| implies the right to enact all needful legis-
lation to enforce the same. The implica-
| tions however to be drawn from the pro-
| visions OF State constitutions are those Of
restriction and the rules OF construction
| which guide courts in the determination OF
| the former are not applicable 10 the latter.
ITO hold that grant OF power In the fed-
| eral Constitution carries with IL. BY implica-
| ton. the right 20 enact legislation heces-
| sary to carry out the grant Is a logical Sc
| quence, but TO limit a power, by implica-
| ton, which, by the express terms OF the
| State Constitution. is unlimited. is. in effect.
1 TO put Into IL words that IL does not contain-
| The latter will only be done when II be-
comes necessary TO preserve some express
| words OF that instrument
The words which counsel Tor Appellee
] ask this court TO hold as a limitefion upon
| the general power or the Legislature are
words OF direction as 70 the time when the
legislative power sholld. at furthest. be ex-
| ercised. There Is a reasonable hypothesis
| unon which TO found belief that because
| the people directed the Legislature 10 APP
/ portion every six years, they intended 10
take away its power 10 do SO al any oiner
| time.
| portion every SIX years Is a restriction upon
| the legislative power Is by no means nee.
essary one. The act OF 1895 can be upheld
| without infringing upon the meaning OF =
single word OF the Constitution. The infer
/ ence that the draughtsman Intended that
| there should be no legislation except al pc
| riods OF six years Is not the only one that
| can reasonably be drawn from language
used.
what evil did the trainers OF the cons,i-
tuition fear, that the Legislature would ap-
norton too often or not often enoughe Was
| II because they feared that the Legislature
might neglect for too long period OF time
| TO make an apportionment or because they
/ aid not want representation equalized only
once every six years. however great the in
| equaities might becomey
THE PROVISION MANDATORY.
That constitutional provisions are man
datory we are not going to controyerf and
| II the provisions OF the Constitution are
| mandatory they were 50 made for the pux-