The Bridgeport evening farmer. [volume] (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1866-1917, 1912-03-09
DOES LIBRARY CASE FORECAST
DESTRUCTION OF UTILITIES LAW

sumption it did as to the powers of
our General Assembly by reason of
both the utteranceS of this court and
the not infrequent legislative practice.
Conceptions of our governmental Or
ganism, which had grown up under the
charter, long survived the adoption of
the Constitution in 1918. They were
repeatedly acted upon, and found ex-
preston in the opinions Of this court.
In Starr VS.. Pease, s Conn. SAL, SAT, it
was declared that the Constitution was
a limitation and not grant of power,
that it found the State sovereign and
independent, with a legislative power
capable of making all laws necessary
for the good Of the people, not for
hidden by the Constitution of the
sound maxims of legislation, and that
If left it in the same condition ex-
cept as far as limitations were pro-
vided. In Pratt VS. Allen, Is Conn.
119, 1926, the same principle was reas-
serted, and 1t was said that with few
limitations the Constitution left the
legislative department as 1t found it
Eleven years after the decision in
Stanley VS.. Colt this court again as
serted its continued allegiance to the
doctrine Of the earlier cases referred
to, and further demonstrated that the
Supreme Court Of the United States
was not without justification in found
ing its decision upon the promise that
our General Assembly was vested with
the exercise of the judicial powers of
chancery. Wheeler's Appeal, 45 Conn.
306
In Norwalk Street Ry. Co.'s Appeal,
So Conn. SIG, the question of the ma
ture of our Constitution and the effect
Of its division OF the powers Of gov
eminent into three distinct depart
ments each confided to a separate
magistracy, to wit: the legislative, the
executive, and the Judicial, again came
un6o, review, and had an exhaustive
discussion. The result was that the
doctrine of Starr VS.. Pease and Pratt
and Wheeler's Appeal expressly over
ruled. Since that decision there has
remained no doubt that our Constitu-
ton is to be construed az a grant
and not as limitation of power, and
that the exercise of judicial power is
the government, as the legislative is to
the judicial
The foundation upon which the de-
cision in Stanley VS.. Colt was made to
rest was thus removed, so that, if it's
conclusion that legislative action in
this State can furnish authority for a
sale Of trust property under condi-
is to remain mistaken, it must find
support upon some other basis than
the broad one that it is competent for
our General Assembly to exercise the
chancery powers OF courts of equity.
The legislative power must be found
somewhere outside Of the judicial do
main, and within the legislative or it
is non-existent.
The opinion in Stanley VS.. Colt as
sumes, and substantially asserts, that
the power which was invoked in aid Of
the public charity then concerned was
a chancery power; and SO it was; and
SO 1t is here under precisely similar
conditions. 1t is one which develop
ed through the exercise Of the extra
ordinary jurisdiction Of the English
Lord High Chancellor, the keeper of
the Kings conscience, and lies wholly
within the sphere of that Jurisdiction.
It concerns a trust, which is emphat-
ically a matter OF conscience, and a
charitable trust, which is peculiarly
and solicitude. Bispham's Equity.
Section 8; Stanley VS.. Colt, 5 Wall Gu.
81 119, 1853. The power is one which
has come into our American jurispru-
dence In conformity with the English
original. and is an adjunct Of the jul
dlcial power. It's exercise involves
an appeal to the conscience of the
made, an inquiry, and determination
embodying the exercise of discretion.
These are peculiarly judicial functions
The judicial power includes such
power as the courts, under the English
and American systems Of jurispru-
dence, have always exercised in legal
and equitable actions" Callahan VS..
Judd. as wis. s43. s4s We have no
occasion to attempt to define the exact
limits Of either the judicial or the leg
iSlative power, or to draw the dividing
line between the two. It is certain,
wherever that dividing line may be- or
however indefinite it may be at points,
that jurisdiction over this charitable
trust to see that it is properly and
beneticially administered. that the pur-
pose of the donor does not fall and
that the interests of the beneficiaries
under changing conditions and with
the lapse of time, belongs to the judi
cial department of the government,
and is in no respect an incident Of the
legislative.
The resolution of the General Assem-
bly,, in so far as it purports to con-
fer authority upon these trustees, in
the management Of their trust, to
ALLEVIATE the premises in ques ion,
must, therefore, fail of its purpose. The
courts, in the exercise of their chan
Gerry powers, are alone competent to
ity not having been obtained, any at
tempt on the part of the trustees to
sell the property would be in excess
of their powers.
The Superior Court is advised to rem
der its Judgment in conformity with
the conclusions herein, stated
No costs in this court will be taxed
in favor Of either party.
In this opinion the other Judges con-
CURED.
CONCERT AT SOUTH CHURCH.
On Thursday evening. March IA,
the South Church Choral Club are to
sing the cantata .Melusina''. by Hoff
man. This is the second appearance
of the club and the work selected by
Mrs. Beardsley, the director, is pa :
interesting, requiring both a
male and a female chorus. There
are 60 members of the club and they
have been working hard under the di-
rection Of the director, to make this
a success. The solo vo'ces
ar ca soprano, an alto, a
baritone and a bass. Mrs. Robert
Douglas Martin, Mrs. Robert B. Hard,
Joseph H. Weller and w. H. JOY of