Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1917-04-06
PLEBISCITE PROHIBITION BILL IS
UPHELDBY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

In some, perhaps, these, laws are
made by representative bodies, or,
II may be. BY the, neople OF these
states, and, N others, by the lords
OF the treasury, Or the boards of
trade, or.Dy the proclamation Of the
sovereign; and In all these cases, no
question can be made Of the perfect
legality OF our acts of Congress be-
ing made dependent upon such con.
tingencies." ..:..
Also, see the case OF People v. Col
Inns, 2 Mich. 343, and especially the
tote to the Annotated Edition which
~ s....... o.. -.
This decision Is clearly put, and
Is obvious, but Its relevancy to the
argument rests on the assumption
that the legislature nay make law
depend on any other contingency
than the popular will, but cannot
make ii depend on that. II may law.
fully say that II 1t shall rain on q
given day at the state capital, then
and thereafter the sale of spirituous
liquors throughout the state shall
be unlawful, but II Il shall be fair
weather on that day at that place,
then the sale of spirituous liquors
throughout the state shall be law.
full. Neither Ruggles. Of n. T.. Wing.
Pratt, Douglass and Copeland OF
Mich, nor Justice Woodward, of
Iowa, doubts that any contingency
which is Independent Of the popular
will and Of the legislature could be
constitutionaIly made the condition
upon which the law should take
effect, because any such contin-
gency leaves the legislators to their
full share of responsibility TO their
constituents, and does not delegate
to or share with any other party
the question Of the expediency Of
the bill becoming a law. The judi
cial mind does not take cognizance
of the wisdom of the contingency
upon which the law IL to take effect,
for this would clearly invade the
province of the legislature. II the
legislature make it. dependent, like
the movements of the Roman armies
under the generalship OF the oracles,
upon the flight Of geese and the
cackling of birds, It is constitutional
But If the contingency is one that
permits the people to exercise q
choice, the law, or at least this
feature OF 1t. Is void.
This NOTE also clearly points out
hat the attempted distinction beween
he legality Of making q prohibitory
r other act GO into effect in any city
r town upon vote of the people. and
he legality Of such q provision for a
eneral act. is absurd and foolish.
Certainly there IL no express
Language. in auy state constitution
declaring that legislature may
leave To. tho vote az = school dis.
trict the. question whether It shall
have a school. or to the vote of a
town or county the qpestion wheth-
er q statute authorizing the issue
Of bonds or the sale OF liquors orl
township organizations, shall lie ac-
cepted or rejected within that parti- |
cular local subdivision of the state.
Yet from time irnmen.orial such acts
have been and are all clearly con.
stitutional. (See the numerous cases |
cited in Nota 4. ON D. l19. Cooley
on Constitutional Iimitations.l Nor
Is there any express clause In any
state constitution declaring that the |
moment the same thing is done for
the entire state Il is unconstitu-
tional Yet the courts generally SO |
decide. See Thorne v. Cramer, Is |
Barb. l12: RradIey v. Baxter. Id. |
122: Barto v. Himrod, 4 Seld. 4S3;
A Harrington tDel.,l 479; Common
wealth v. williams. Ii Penn. 81;
and Parker Y. Commonwealth. 6
Barr. 507. How fine and keen must
be that judicial scent which can. at |
once. certify clearly the utter abb |
sence of the least trace or faint OF !
i,nconstitutionality IN 4 law so long
as II Il special. and applies to only |
fifty-nine counties Of the sixty that |
NAV Be IN a state. but when IL |
"a extnnded to the sixtieth county, |
..perceiyes that the whole air is moi. |
some and poisoned by the faint OF |
thai greatest of all crimes. an over.
throw of the constitution. And how
fortunate II ia thar our happily con-
strncted and diyirely perfect con-
etit,,t;ons have hat the forethought
$500 -. 80. -.