Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1917-04-06

AZ well as in the decision on the
Webb Kenyon act. that arguments q
70 aelegation u legislative power 20
the states Is sound: that these laws
rest upon the same principle as the
local option laws which ID not q dele
CATION Of power 20 make . law. but
the enactment OF law TO take effect
upon certain state Of facts. The
late decision on tie webb-Kenyon Act.
Clark DistillinS Co. " Western Mary
land Co, contained IL the United
States Advanced Opinions OF February
Is, 1917. holds that snch act Is not
delegation by Congress OF legislative
authority. The law is enacted by tho
Congress of the United States, though
IL becomes effective In q particular
state only upoa q legislative act by
the state. Likewise, the Territorial
Legislature can pass an act and make
the same effective when the people
Of the Territory vote approval without
defeating the legislative authority
to those who determine the condition
which makes the law 60 into effect
anotner recent Feuer1l Act OF
March 3, 1917, towit, the rider to the
Appropriation Act for the fiscal year
ending June 80 1918, forbids the mail
ing of liquor advertisements addressed
to any place In any state. or territory
at which IL Is or may be unlawful to
solicit orders TOR such liquors. re-
ceiyed by the .ast mail q letter from
the solicitor Of the Post Office Depart
ment asking for any Hawaiian Statute
which may be applicable to such mat
ter, II any exist or may be hereafter
enacted; in other words, State Terri
torial statute Lsay have the effect Of
making an act q Federal crime which
was not a Federal crime before such
state or territorial legislatures en-
actment. Il Is well settled that Con-
gress cannot delegate its authority
to a state. Is This delegation Of Fed.
eral legislative authority TO Q statef
The solicitor does not question the
constituti0naiity sef this act, neither
do I: the act Is similar to the Webb
Kenyon Act. the Wilson Act and the
numerous laws which go into effect
upon contingency, whether that con-
tingency be an act of nature, an act
OF rulers of 'lther nations, peoples
OF other nations or the voters of the
state, or peopls Of the particular state.
I'VE may conclude then by saying
that there is authority holding such
acts illegal as delegation Of legisla-
tive authority as cited by the report
OF the Committee Though the founda-
tions of these decisions have been de-
slrvyeo W subsequent decisions, yet,
/ believe that am safe in saying
that both our own Supreme Court,
which has adopted a liberal and
enlightened view upon the consti'l-
tionality Of Legislative acts, ard
the Supreme Court OF the United
States, which has always been ex-
tremely reluctant to declare iegisla-
tive act uncop stitutioltal, would up
hold the constitutionality Of the pro-
vision In question. k.
"All the authorities (including Unit
ed States Supreme Court decisions)
hold that the operation OF the law may
be made to depend upon q future con-
tingency, that such legislation is not
with the Constitution,
and in the language OF State Y. Par.
ker. supra. II seems TO me that the
attempted between the con-
Of ponular vote and other
future uncertainties, Is without. all
just foundation in sound policy or
sound reasoning"
RESPECTFULLY;
INGRAM N. STA1NBACK,
ST. Attorney General
S1VTv n n. n. a. = =