The news scimitar. (Memphis, Tenn.) 1907-1926, 1919-03-19
Gentlemen:

uenllemen'
ton TGa nsyf 3h ssf Seop %s to >5 ElrS Manager SS@ 8 TE B3r" for Ss1 thor city 9P 'o of s ssSs-
pnis, and ,m its going .M into effect dt sto as s a la% of the state be made dependent
~ IN \ MY JUDGMENT, SUCH SUBMISSION WOULD BE uNcoN-
The general question as to whether the legal efficacy of statutes
.S Sdt th, T s'a pss sa oS % %y ou to s aGRSnS u court t0 in t sep eSss of P' w = pGRu' Vs.
. Ct n il5 n Tenn page oo a4S' Mt dh1 ps de atfbono Ta s. that sn a s condition h ID !"
Legislature except in certain cases set forth in our constitution of 1870,
charter is not one Of the exceptions contained in the Constitution, or
referred to in the. case of Wright VS.. Cunningham, nor, indeed mu-
n that case; after stating the rule, rule on nn the subject is =, as shown how, , in the
ment, the court added that legislative power could not be delegated
thoized such delegation, or those sanctions by immemorial usage orig
mating anterior to the Constitution and continuing unquesioned there
It was further said that the immemorisl usage referred to had
powers conferred on municipal corporations in their several charters
ing to the ordering and administration of their local affairs; and that
Of the counties of the state for the management of local matters; and
s4f nsa nsaes a b sU ine A TpETs' IS. sec9or' } of % the c pc iun no. on !"
As to mqniGioal l generations alto s;L it was said tn that t., in d nsaa pow pow,
of these organizations and not directly with the people themselves. The
he force Of the wel-recogntzed rule that the acceptanee rejection or
vote of the people embraced within the territory of the municipality
any mo more Ct than nn, BY the fact that y General prn cha r nscn may ss,t framed n for the h
as to any particular set of people untIl adopted by the requisite mum
be surrendered by the same persons or their successors
in Wight ri 1S' y s''S cS Sn T61antSy I is S3 TsSni q the lS court 'S SG a under r' essnhn o
,t S77 Chapter 2s 1, o. Of 5 the a Acts IS of 9m iSdS; and If cn f|a former n1 Of 1t the sA AoTs od
Court in the asses referred to (Brinklev vs. stste', page 4So, stated
c cien' 4 for present ut purposes rT to not" {" the h' fact that the zee General Assembly,
sy ,G% Of fe TSa'ovor 0o %"Sa an Upi however, %i fneo SrSas e S5mpS" power Pr sp
to surrender its old charter and adopt a new ono by pursuing the
course prescribed therefor" The course prescribed was, may adopt
he charter contained in this act provided a majority of those voting
at an election to he held for such purpose shall vote in favor of such
IadoptIon" Page AIS. Speakihg of this method, the court said at page
aSi' at is entirely within the constitutional power of the General AS
Isemhlv, by general statutes, to authorize any and every suitable COM
muniy to become Incorporated in the first instance for governmental
purposes. end also TO authorize those already Incorporated, under se-
chl or general charters. to surrender them and sdont others. The grant
of ouch authority is not = DELEGATION Of legislative mower. but a lPgui-
mate exercise of that exclusive function" The acts referred to in the
orinion OF the court we're general acts of the Legislature, the last of
which had been In effect rs a public Jaw "a years when McMinnvnle
Che town referred to in the opinion took a vote Of the people and
adopted the form of charter provided. The efficacy of the legislative
act in no sense depended upon the vote of the people of McMinnvile.
The first of these acts went into effect and became a perfect law in