The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1902-08-27

Une Legislative power III UH6 GeueTdl
Assembly, consisting of the House of
Representative and the Senate, and
if the mode of proceeding under con-
sideration is equivalent to giving
power to the people at large, it is, no
doubt, III conflict with the Constitu-
ton. "
If this is about the most important
part of the opinion it should be quoted
accurately, and it is evident that the
printers devil dropped out the very
important word Legislative. The
correct reading is here given. IL com.
mences as just indicated and then
proceeds: "And if the mode of pro-
ceeding under consideration is equiva-
lent to giving Legislative power to
the people at large, it is, no doubt, in
conflict with the Constitution. -
1t is evident even to layman that
there is quite a difference between
giving legislative power and giving
power generally, aud no lawyer would
contend that the delegation of legisla-
tive power, forbidden by the Consti-
tuition, would be constitutional be-
cause the Constitution has provided
that legislative power is vested in
the Senate and House of Representa-
tives and in this connection it is
well to bear in mind that legislative
power is function of government
delegated by the Constitution to the
law making branch of the govern
ment, as distinguished from the ad-
ministrative and judicial functions,
and because a city is given power to
vote on the acceptance or rejection
of city charter (Which was done by
John H. Senter, a Democrat, when
he drafted the city charter of Mont
pelier), and on the question of whether
or not it will accept or reject provi-
ions exempting manufacturing es-
Establishments from taxation, there is
clearly not such a delegation of legis-
lative power to the municipalities
part of the administrative branch of
the government-as is prohibited by
the Constitution of this State. And
yet, in a sense, it is delegation of
power, for it leaves to the inhabitants
Of a city the question of deciding
whether or not they will allow an en-
actment of the Legislature to become
of binding force upon them but, as
suggested by Judge Thompson, in the
Cotton and More case, the vote of the
people "neither adds to nor takes
from the statute by such vote. " 1t
merely brings the people within the
provisions of the law so that the law
becomes of binding force upon the
people, and, as Judge Redfield states
in the Parker case, such proceeding
on the part of the Legislature is
mot only proper and legal, and just
and moral, but highly commednable
and creditable to the Legislature who
passed the statute, for at the TIRES
hold of such law lies the more i'm
portant inquiry, Are the people pre-
pared for such law
The Argus lawyer then proceeds to
say: "There can be little doubt that
to make statute take effect only
when approved by the people is CIV
ing the people Legislative power,
which is declared in this decision to
be in conflict with the Constitution"
That is simply begging the question.
The inquiry in each particular case
before the court is whether there is
such a delegation of the legislative
power as is prohibited by the Consti-
tuition, and what the case of State v.
Parker decides is that there is not
such delegation of power in the pro-
hibitory law of 1852 as made the law
unconstitutional.
To make the point clearer, an infor-
nation was filed by the States at
torney of Windsor county against
John Parker charging that Parker
had violated the prohibitory law
after it went into effect in 1858. Par
ker pleaded not guilty, was tried ano
convicted, and the case went to the
Supreme Court on exceptions, the
claim being made that Parker had moi
violated any law of the State, ant
that claim necessarily involved thu
inquiry whether the prohibitory Law
was constitutional, for if the law
were unconstitutional there could b'
no violation of the law and in tina
decision the Supreme Court did no
hold that the law would have gon'
into effect just when it did If tn
people had voted against it, or If the,
had not voted on the question at all
as stated by the Argus Possibly, a
the Argus suggests, if there had beef
no vote at all the law might have BEEF
held to have taken effect when it did
but as such a state of facts did not eX
list, the question was not before tn
court for its decision, so that wha
the Supreme Court might have decid
| oil al, or of Of {