Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1913-08-19

- - -----.
discuss further the cases from other
jurisdictions wherein the supreme
courts do not entertain the same views
as the supreme court o. Iowa. suit
Client has been said TO show the great
diversity OF opinions whether the word
debt" as used In constitutions Ieiat'
ing to municipal liabilities snail Dc
given broad Specification, az IN gen
eral use, and, In effect, given ny
the United States court IN the CITY
Water Co. case. supra, or Limited
and less comprehensive meaning, as
given It In the Swanson case, supra.
The apparent explanation for this
great diversity Of opinion, and the rea.
son assigned for its use IN limited
sense, Is one Of necessity, for the su-
preme court In the Swanson case said,
referring to the word debt" such
rigid literal Interpretation OF the word
in constructing the constitutional pro-
vision would completely paralyze
municipal power In every city whose
debt has reached the prescribed limit"
The limitations Of the constitution az
applied to municipalities, was for the
wholesome purpose OF absolutely pro-
hibiting burdens Of taxation. and the
limit 10 fixed at five per centum OF the
! taxable value Of the taxable property
within the municipality; and the legis-
lature. the people or city council can
not enlarge that limit. Hence, when
the municipality has reached that limit
,, OF indebtedness We find some course
placing a limited construction upon
the word debt % In the Swanson
case, that 10, one Of necessity to save
paralyxing the city's business. while
other courts do not permit this ap-
parent necessity to drive them to the
point OF recognizing and opposing
what, in their judgment, 70 = flasrant
violation Of the fundamental law But
this does not pertain to the creation
of a state debt under sections 2 and
& az article Z OF the constitution, for
there the people have reserved to
themselves the power to determine
whether or not the necessity has
arisen for the creation Of q state debt
In excess Of $780, 900, and II they deter.
mine 1t has. then by their vote. 70
authorize 1t to he created. hut II y
claimed that even should the court
find sections 8, 10, II and ~ unconstF
,, tutional, yet sections ! to Inclusive
are constitutional and should stand.
But when viii the judiciary wh"a hold,
| Ing q portion Of statute unconstitu-
tional and void. hold the remainder
valid. Cooley, In his constitutional
Limitations, on page 2<6. lays down
the true rule: 1T will sometimes BE-
found that an act Of the legislature 10
opposed in some Of It's provisions 70
the constitution. while others. stand.
ling by themselves, would be unoh-
/ jectionable. SO the forms observed in
passing II may be sufficient for some
y OF the purposes sought to be accom-
[ plished by 1t, but insufficient for
others. In any such case the portion
which conflicts with the constitution.
or in regard to which the necessary
conditions have not been observed,
must be treated al = nullity. Whether
! the other parts Of the statute must
! also be adjudged void because of the
association, must depend upon con-
1 sideration OF the object OF the law,
. and In what manner and to what OK.
tent the unconstitutional portion ar
fects the remainder. Where part OF
a statute ID unconstitutional, that fact
does not authorize the courts 70 de-
clare the remainder void also. unless
! all the provisions are connected In sub
ject matter, depending on each other,
operating together for the same pur-
pose, or otherwise so connected to-
| gether In meaning, that It cannot be
presumed the legislature would have
passed the one without the other. And
II It's purpose IL to accomplish single
object only. and some OF it's provisions
are void. the whole must fall unless
sufficient remains to effect the object
without the aid Of the invalid portion.
And II they are 30 mutually connected
with and depend on each other. as con-
ditions, considerations or compensa-
| tions, for each other, as to warrant the
belief that the legislature intended
them as a whole, and II all could not
be carried into effect the Legislature
1 would not pcs the residue independ-
emily, then II some parts are unconsti-
| tutional, all OF the provisions which
are thus dependent conditional, or con-
,nected, must fall with them"
| Justice Miller. In the Trade cases.
100 u. 8. 81 in discussing this ques-
/ ton said III we should in the case
before us, undertake to make by judi.
cial construction, q law which congress
did not make, It Is quite probable we
should do what, II the matter was be-
fore that body, 1t would be unwilling
/ to do" In the case Of PoHdexter vs.
:Greenhow ia U. s. 270. the supreme
court OF the United States, in discus
sing this proposition said: 1T Is un'
.doubtedly true that there may be
cases where one part OF a statute may
be enforced or constitutional. and an
] other imperative and void, because un
constitutional: but these are cases
where the parties are SO distinctly sep
eratable that each can stand alone
and where the court can see and to de
clare, that the intention OF the lesis
lature was that the part pronounced