The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-12-17

ality Of bill to revise and amend the
 charter of the city of Denver. expressed
 US opinion that the power of the legls-
 lature to dlsincorporate cities and towns
 by special act must be denied. the reason
 given being that such an act, if mot di-
 reotly inhibited by the letter of the con-
 stitution. Is certainly opposed to the
 spirit of the provision. The object be- Ing to free all towns and cities from lo- cal or special 1egislation,' 1t was said to
 be "clear that the inhibition of the sec ton must be held 10 extend to the dis incorporation. as well as the incorporation
 Of such cities and towns" We cannot follow the reasoning of the case. There IS no literal prohibition in the constitu- tlon of this state against the dfsincor-
 poration of cities and towns by special
 laws. Before an act of the legislature can be declared unconstitutional it must clearly. decisively and unavoidably, ap- pear to have been without the power of the legislature. Nor can any purpose conceivably entertained by the framers or the constitution be served by keep ing in existence municipal corporation which Tor any reason has outlived it's usefulness or when an enlightened policy shall determine that it's people and terri tory may find better government as part of another municipality. The pur- pose was to bring about uniformity of organization and government because wisdom might better be expected in laws which must affect cities and towns hay ing many representatives in the legisa- ture, and for the advantages of an uni- form system of law throughout the state. Neither of these purposes is to be served by an interpretation of the constitution, which, travelling beyond it's letter. denies the power of the legislature to disincor- porate city, town or village. The other cases cited by appellee Davis vs. Wool nougn, Iowa. 104; ex parte Pritz, ID. 8o State ex rel Atty Gen. vs Cincinnati, % Ohio St. 1s) harlz back to the proposi- tion. already discussed that the legisla- ture may not amend municipal charters by special acts. To destroy Is not to amend. A thing amended survives Nor is an alteration or encouragement of the
 boundaries an amendment of the char ter of a municipality The constitution clearly recognizes this fact by excepting an act altering or rearrangng boundaries from the prohibition against local laws
 amending charters. Nor. again, does appellee's contention gain comfort in section 22s Of the constitution which con- tains this provision among others: "The charter of any corporation shall be sub Ject to amendment, alteration or repeal under general laws" The context of that section makes it clear that this pro- vision was intended for application to Piifdte puslneSS corporations, In the printed copies of the constitution, to be round In the code and elsewhere, this section, along with others which seem to pertain to private corporations only, is grouped under the subhead Municipal corporations" But an inspection of the official copy on file in the office of the secretary of state makes it to appear that the sections referred to are grouped un- der the subhead Private Corporations" f1aa rf&, supposed 10 grow out of section 229.
 Evlnclng Arbitrary Discretion.
 We are asked to condemn this act as evincing an arbitrary exercise of legis- iative discretion. Again the case of the city of Denver Is referred to. But we have said enough of that case and of the different constitutional provisions there involved to indicate our opinion that It ought not to control the decision Of this case. It would require an ex- treme case to induce us to declare an exercise of legislative discretion as to the territory to be included in a city | or town to constitute an usurpation of power and an unJustihable disregard of the rights of municipalities destroyed by merger. if indeed any case of that char acter could be made the subpect of ju- dicial review.-Tiedeman Hun. Corp Par. b6. The charter of a municipal corpor- i ation is confer<eas for political purposes. In town of East Haftford vs Hartford Bridge company, 10 How, all, it is said that cities and towns which are public municipal and political bodies "are in- corporated for public and not private objects. They are allowed to hold priv ileges and property only for public pur- poses. The members are not sharehold- CTS, nor joint partners in any corporate estate, which they can sell or devise to others. or which can be attached and levied on for their debts. Hence, gener- ally, the doings between them and the legislature are In the nature of legisla- ton rather than compact and subject to al the legislative conditions just named, and therefore to be considered as not violated by subsequent legislative changes" The power to alter amend lsubJect In this state to the limitation that in certain conditions 1t must be done by general bili) or repeal the charter of public corporation must necessarily exist without limitation in the sovereign, otherwise there would be "numberless petty governments existing within the state forming part of it, but inde- pendent of the control of the sovereign power"-1 Abbott Nun. Cor. Par. a.
 where numerous authorities are cited. As for the reasonableness of the exercise of power in this particular case. this court has, as 1t should, borne constant ly in mind that tho propriety and wisdom of enaetments by the lawmakers are questions pecuIiary and exclusively within the decisive right of that depart ment, and. if the act under investigat tion contravenes no provision of the organic law. the judiciary Is without righful power to review the legislative deter imitation of the wisdom and propriety of the action ."-State ex rel, Meyer vs. Greene 154 Ala, 14s. These consid
 erations dispose also of the allegations of the bill that the act runs counter to the Fourteenth amendment of the con- stitution of the United States in that the city of Ensley will by this act be deprived of It's property without due process of law. This question was dis posed of in the case of Hunter ys. Pitts burg, POT U. c. 161, in language 50 apt and conclusive that we quote 1t as fol- lows: Municipal corporations arc polit
 ical subdivisions of the state. created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the state as may be intrusted to them. For the purpose of executing these powers properly and efficiently they are usual ly given the power to acquire, hold and manage personal and real property. The number, nature and duration of the pow CTS conferred upon these corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute dis- cretion of the state. Neither their char ters. nor any law conferring government al powers or vesting in them property to be used for governmental purposes, Or authorizing them to hold or manage auch pronertv ar exemptinx them from