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


-
a referendum OF any general
law Is constitutional because the
by delegated to the electors"
The case further holds that there
Is no distinction between general and
local laws and no reason exists for,
applying q different rule 70 a local
law than that applicable TO q general
law on the question whether either
law shall not become operative until
approved by the people. The opinion
states,-j -
1T Is well settled that while the
legislature may not delegate its pow,
er TO make law, IL can make to be-
come operative On the happening
or a certain contingency or on the
ascertainment Of c fact upon which
the law makes or intends TO make
its own actions depend"
Citing many authorities, again the
court says: VI -
We think this court was right
In saying In State ex. rel. Attorney
General V. o'Neill. and Smith ".
GAINESVILLE, that no good reason en-
isted for applying q different rule
to local Law than applicable to one
not local. In reference to the dis
tinction between the right of refer.
endam as to local and general laws,
Judge Cooley asked these pertinent
questions which are not answered
by the cases In those courts which
recognize such distinction. May
not any law framed for the State
at large be made conditional on an
acceptance by the people at large
declared through the ballot box?. II
Il Is not constitutional to delegate
TO single locality the power to de.
eide that II be governed by parti.
cular charter, must 1t not as fairly
be within the power OF the legisla.
ture to refer to the people at large
the decision upon any proposed
statute affecting the whole State"
As pointed out in numerous authori-
ties, including the Supreme Court of
the United States, there Is no ques.
ton but that a law can be passed by q
legislative body to take effect only
upon the happening Of q subsequent
event. Brig Aurora. Cranch, $50;
Marshall.Field & Co. v. Clark, 14S u.
s. $40, and authorities cited therein.
However, the case denying the con-
of referendum acts at
tempt 70 distinguish between q con-
tipgency which is the will, OF the |
people of the State, and any other
contingency. For example: The case
of Barlow Y. Hinrod, s. N. Y. 4S3, cited |
b the report Of the Committee, states: |
There IL no doubt Of the author.
ity Of the legislature TO pass an act |
to take effect upon contingency.
But what Is contingency IN this
sense and connection! It is some
event Independent Of the VIII OF the |
lawm6king power as exercised i'd !
making the Law, OF some event over
which the legislature has not con-
troll. For instance, the embargo +
{ laws and their cessation we're made /
TO depend upon the action OF for.
eign powers In relation to certain I
DEGREES. ses The win OF the
people Is not a contingency upon
which certain things are or are not
to be done under the Law, but IT be-
comes the determining power wheth-
er such shall be the law or not.
This argument has been effectively
IN numerous cases, incind.
ne State v. Parker. supra, in which
{ Is stated
IF the operation Of the law may
fairly be made to depend upon a
future contingency, then, In my APP
prehension, t makes no essential
difference what is the nature of the
contingency, 60 IL be an equal and
q fair one, moral and legal one,
not opposed to sound policy, and so
far connected with the object and /
purpose of the statute as not to be
a mere idle and arbitrary one.
1T seems to me that the distinc-l
ton attempted between the contin-
gency OF 9 popular vote and 9th +
er future uncertainties. Is without I
ell just foundation In sound policy
or sound reasoning, and that IL has
too often been made more from me-
cessity than choice rather to es-
cape from an Overwhelming analogy,
than from any obvious difference
IN principle In the two classes or
casest for. as has been mentioned,
one may find any number OF. cases,
In the legislation Of Congress, where
statutes have been made DEPENDENT
upon the shifting character of the
revenue laws, or the navigation
laws, or commercial rules, edicts, /
or restrictions of other countries.
4