The advocate., 1897-06-09


That is matter for the courts alone,
Whether the law or constitution ought
to be that way, it is not our purpose now
to discuss. But that it is the law, Con-
gress and the courts agree.
Referring to our last weeks edition Of
the ADVOCATE, the reader will find, under
the heading, "a Question OF Power" the
following Introductory language:
In republic all political power resides
primarily In the people. Whatever powers
Legislatures possess, and none other, they de-
rive from the people. What is not thus dele
gated is retained by the people.
Political powers are divided into three
Legislative, executive and judicial
that all legislative powers therein granted
shall be vested in Congress, ETC., that the
executive power shall he vested In Presi-
dent, and that the judicial power shall be
vested in one Supreme Court, etc.
These powers while they are thus generally
prescribed, are not defined In the constitu-
tion. Parliamentary law Is older than the
constitution, and long established ds6nt-
tion Of these powers Is assumed to be gener-
ally understood. Some powers are expressly
granted, while some are expressly withheld; (;
some pass by necessary implication, and by
the same rule others remain with the people.
And SO it is in Kansas. Section 2 Of
our bill Of rights declares: Gall political
power is inherent in the people," Section
20provides: "This enumeration Of rights
shall not be construed to impair or deny
others retained by the people; and all
powers not herein delegated remain with
the people,"
Section l Of article of the constitu.
tion provides: "The legislative power of
this State shall be- vested In House Of
Representatives and Senate" But there
is no definition of Legislative power" in
the constitution.
Section l of article provides: "The
judicial power Of this State shall be
vested in q Supreme Court, District
Courts" etc. Nowhere is judicial power
vested in the Legislature or committee
thereof.
The three distinctive powers Of gov
ernment-legislative, executive and judi
cial-are intended and expected to be
exercised separately, except in certain
cases, and these cases are specified, as
when the President or a Governor ap-
proves a bill he performs part Of legis-
lative act.
But these separate powers are not de-
fined in the constitution or in the laws.
They were long ago recognized in par
liamentary practice as established and
are now taken to be understood by law
yers and lsymen alike.
Now, here is a case involving the scope
OF legislative power under the constitu-
tlon and laws of Kansas, and two Judges
that belong to the same political party
do not quite agree about it. Is there
anything strange about that?-anything
wrong about it?-anything SO unusual
as to Justify bitter denunciation OF one
Of them? During q period OF thirty
years all the members Of our Supreme
Court belonged to one and the same
party in politics, yet they frequently dis
agreed in important cases. Indeed, ex-
cepting cases which involve applications
OF principles that are regarded by politi-
cal parties as fundamental, Judges are
never influenced in their opinions by
party bias.
The ADVOCATE entertsins the highest
respect for both these eminent men.