Evening journal., 1919-08-26
l-rs~p opah4a The Evening Journal reassNs~ Today

school laws are concerned has never
been construed by the Delaware courts,
nevertheless, similar principle has
been laid down by the court In banc OF
this state In the case OF Rice VS.. Foster
4th Harrington, PAGE ATe. This was
case In which the Legislature passed an
act authorizing the people to decide by
ballot whether the license 10 retail in
toxlcatlng liquors should be permitted
among them. The court was unani-
nous In deciding the following princl-
pies:
"rhe legislative power in this State Is
vested In a General Assembly; that the
people have dlvested themselves OF all
legislative power and vested II IN that
body, and that the act authorizing the
people TO decide by ballot whether a
license 10 retail Intoxicating liquors
should be permitted among them ex-
presses no legislative win on this sub
iect, and delegates legislative power to
the people Of each county"
The Constitution OF the State OF Della
ware In effect at the time OF the Rice
the Constitution OF 1897 insofar as Sec
tion Of Article 9 lsetting forth In
whom the legislative power in this
State Is vestedl is. concerned.
The case Of Barlow vs.. HlmrOd. Sth
New York, page is3, Is case almost d.
rectly In point. In this case an act 10
Establish free schools throughout the
state" was by its terms 10 be submitted
TO the qualified voters OF the State TO
determine whether this act shall or
shall not become a law" The act, not
merely the provisions for submission,
was held void, because there was a
delegation OF legislative power TO the
people; they were 10 decide whether 10
should become "A law or not The act
was framed and duly passed by the
Legislature, and approved. IL provided
for a system OF free schools 10 On
acted that it should be voted upon,
what should be tho effect Of a majority
in the negative and tho effect OF a ma
iorlty in the Affirmative. In one event
the system was 10 be practically
adopted; In the other Il was 10 be
abandoned. The Chief Justice in deliv-
ering the opinion OF the court. said,
"If by the terms OF this act 10 had been
declared 10 be law from the time OF
its passage TO take effect, in case II
should receive a majority OF votes In It's /
favor, It would, nevertheless have been !
invalid because the result OF the popu- (
lar vote upon the expedlency OF the /
law I'm not such a future event as the /
statute can be made TO take effect upon. |
according to the meaning and Intent OF /
the Constitution.
"The event or change OF clrcum-
stances, which a law may be made TO
lake effect, must be such as. I'm the
Judgment Of the Legislature, affects the |
question OF the expedency Of the law
an event on which the expediency Of the !,
law in the judgment OF The Lawmakers
depends. On this question OF expedl-
ancy the Legislature must exercise its
own judgment. definitely and finally.
when a law is made TO take effect
upon the happening OF such an event,
The Legislature in effect declare the law
II the event should not
happen; or expedient II it should hap
pen. They appeal TO no other man or
men TO judge for them in relation 20 It's
present or future expediency. They
exercise that power for themselves and
thus perform the duty which The Con
stitution imposes upon them, but In the
present case no such event or change
OF circumstances affecting the expedi-
ency OF the law was expected TO hap
pen. The wisdom or eXpediency OF the
free school act. abstraotly considered.
did not depend on the vote Of the peo-
pie. II IL was uDwise or inexpedlenl
before that vote was taken. it was
equally so afterwards. The event on
which the act was made 10 take effect
VAS nothing else that the vote OF the
,eople on the identical question which
he Constitution makes itsthe duty OF
he Legislature itself TO decide The
legislature has no power TO make a
tatute dependent on such a contln-
;ency, because IL would be conflding 20
lthers that legislative discretion which
hey are bound 20 exercise themselves
nd which they cannot delegate or com
nit to any other man or men TO be ex-
rcised They have no more author
ty 20 refer such a question TO the
whole people than 10 an individual
NE people are sovereign, but their s
Oyereignty must be exercised In the E
node which they have pointed out In
he Constitution. All legislative power
$ derived from The people; but when
he people adopted the Constitution
hey surrendered the power OF making
avs TO the Legislature and imposed Il
Ipon that body as a duty"
In the case OF SantO VS.. State, 9 Iowa,
65, a similar question was involved.
IN the question whether tho result OF
popular vote OF an act going into
feet was an event on which its going s
nto effect could be made TO depend, the E
Ourt used this language, "Ir the peo-
lie are 10 say whether an act shall be- s
ONE a law they become or are put In s
he place OF the lawmakers" And here
a constitutional objection. Their
viii Is not a contingency upon which 4
eriain things are, or are not, 20 be
one under the law, but it becomes
he determining power whether such
hall be the law or not This makes
hem the Legislative authority" which
y the Constitution, is vested In the
enate and House OF Representatives E
nd not in the people. fne Legislature S
annot refer a bin TO the people for
hem to make it law by poplar vote
When such a bin Is called for 10 give
he force OF law 20 a proposal or plan S
Z a law formulated by the Legislature
nd submitted TO the people the courts
My declare a truism. on which there
) no dissent, in holding acts so adopt .
d unconstitutional.
The Legislature Of the State OF Massa-
husetts submitted to the Spreme Court s
or its opinion the following questions:
Il. Is IL constitutional in an act grant s
ng to women the right TO vote in town s