The log cabin Democrat. [volume] (Conway, Ark.) 1908-current, 1912-07-12

state, and the legislature has also
provided the machinery for the en-
forcement of these municipal laws.
These municipalities are as much
the creature of the legislature as the
legislature is the creature of the con-
stitution (the people,. These law
making powers which the legislature
has taken from itself and ceded to
the municipalities may be with
drawn, curtailed or enlarged by their
creator-the legislature. In theory,
at least, the legislature might abolish
the city council and withhold to itself
all municipal law-making power.
If the legislature has the right to
create a municipality, to endow it
with a law-making power and to
stipulate that that law-making power
shall be exercised by board of al
dermen or city council-if these
things are true, why has not the leg
islature the right to amend this law
making power of its creature, and to
provide that co-ordinately with the
city or town council the voters of the
municipality at the polls may them
selves enact or repeal municipal laws,
under regulations fixed by the legis-
lature? In other words, if the leg
islature can with regard to munich
palities, endow a small number of
citizens (the counciD with the power
to make municipal laws, why cannot
the legislature endow a large num-
Der of citizens (the people at the
polls) with the power to make NUM-
cipal laws?
If an affirmative answer is given to
this question, how can we escape the
conclusion that the legislature did
this identical thing when it passed
Act No. 2 of the extraordinary ses-
sion of 1911? 1t is true that this law
is known as an enabling act, to car
ry into effect the initiative and refer
endum powers reserved by the people
in Amendment No. 10 to the constitu-
ton. But the contention sought to be
established here is that, even though
no reference to municipalities had
been contained in Amendment No. 10,
the legislature would still have the
power to extend to its creature, the
municipality, the right to enact mu-
nicipal legislation by means of the
initiative and referendum.
The second paragraph of the first
section of Act No. 2 above referred
to, is as follows:
"That within 80 days after the
passage of any ordinance by any city
or town council, five per cent of the
legal voters of such municipality
may, by petition, order the referen-
dunn upon any such ordinance"
The second clause of the first sent
ence in the third section of the same
act is as follows:
Eight per cent of the legal voters
of any county or of any city or in
town may, at any time
more than four months before any
regular general election, propose any
measure, not inconsistent with the
general laws or constitution Of the
state, applicable only to such county
or municipality; and when
any measure proposed, of local appli-
cation only to any county or munich
pality, shall have received a majority
of the legal votes cast upon such pro-
posed measure at the election at
which the same shall have been voted
upon and the result of the vote legal
ly proclaimed, as hereinafter provid-
ed, the same shall be and become
law for such county or municipal
ity."
Disregarding any question as the
of Amendment No. 10,
it seems clear that the legislature has
the power to establish means of self
legislation for it's creatures, the coun-
ties and the municipalities; that it
did establish such means of self-leg-
islation in the case of city councils
in municipalities; and that by the
passage of the so-called enabling act
it widened and extended these powers
of self-legislation to include the vot-
ers at the polls as well as the city
council.
In discussing this subject, more at
tention has been paid to the munich
pality than the county as a law-mak-
ing unit, for the reason that the leg
islature, the creator of both units,
has more clearly defined and estab-
lished the law-making power of the
former. But the analogy holds good
as to the county. The county has no
organized legislative body, and to the