The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-02-24

;.
Where by the constitution or organic
law the several powers. legislative, ju
dicial and executive, are divided into
separate departments, and the powers Of
each department defined, all authority ex-
pressly or implicitly assigned TO one de-
partment cannot be performed by or dele
gated TO anOther.-FoX VS.. Mcdonald,
2l L. R. A, $40. (Ala).
There IS no power in one department
of government 10 exercise functions i'm
posed upon another of the depar mems
Harvey VS.. State. 119 Ind, 401; Higbee VS..
Higbee, Utah. %.
In State ex rel, Harvey VS.. Noble. ct
al. us Ind. $50, the supreme court OF In
diana, speaking of Chief Justice Elliott
said:
Section of article Z, of the constitu-
ton vests the judicial power of the COM
monwealth in the courts. It ordains that
The judicial power Of the state shall be
vested in a supreme court, in circuit
courts. and in such other courts as the
general assembly may establish. The
effect Of this provision is to vest in the
courts the whole element of sovereignty
known as the judicial, established by the
constitution and the laws enacted under
it, except in a few instances where pow
ers of a judicial nature are expressly ana
SpeCinCallN lOlgeu tiSchlltiV.
THE supreme court of Nebraska said:
The powers Of the state government
are divided into three distinct depart
ments. the legislative, executive and judi
ciaI and no person or collection OF per-
sons. being one of these departments. can
exercise any power properly belonging TO
either Of the others, except expressly so
authorized by the constitution. Uncer
This division of distinct departments OF
the government. the apporuonment OF
power to one department Will Of itself i'm
ply an inhibition of its exercise by the
other.'-Turner vs.. Athaus, Neo., a.
In the case of Greenough Us. Green
ough. II Pa, St, 4S9, Chief Justice Gibson
said
But the judicial power of the common
wealth is its whole judicial power, and 1t
IS so distributed that the legislature can
not exercise any part Of IT,
Does any one suppose says the su-
orene court Of Illinois that this state
can rightfully confer Judicial power on
any other courts than those provided for
and created under our fundamental law
And IN speaking Of the provision OF the
constitution comforting judicial power
the court in the same opinion said:
.. This section has exhausted the )uol-
ciaI power Of the people Of the state. II
:
sidium. Missouri River Tel. - vs. VA
tionaI Bank, "a IL. 217.
Justice Mtchell-In Hovey. governor
vs.. state. ex rel Carson. 11s Ind, 4ol. said;
".It has accordingly become an estao-
ushAd rule OF constitutional law that where
general power has been confided 70 or vest
ed in one department OF government per
soe entrusted with power in another de-
partment will not be permitted 20 encroach
unon the power Of. nor exercise functions
which pertain and are appropriate 10 the
other department unless the authority 20
IN 90 is conferred in express terms, or IN
less the exercise OF the power becomes
necessary and appropriate IN order 70 dis
charge other constitutional duties and
functions expressly committed % it
In me case OF People * re- Mcdonald
Us Keeler. % y. Y. 4s3. the same doctrine
Is announced and approved, but the court
also held that The legislature had limited
judicial authority and by reason q such
authority could punish for contempt. Chief
Justice Gray in Wh.tcoubs case. 10 Mas.
H. sad:
The legislature nay also provide for
.--a punishment upon indictment and trial.
IN TIE courts II justice. % any pe-so1 vao
being duly summoned. refuses 20 appear
and testify before any board Or tribune
upon any matter which II = authorized ~
law 20 investigate ~ decide But the Leg
ss-a-gre cannot delegate 20 0r confer upon
municipal boards - on - that are %
courts q Justice. and whose proceedings
ara not ne exercise % judicial power, ne
authority O. irn7r.s71 and punish