Year: 1874

sembly exclusively are by the cons'itu'
ton invested. On the contrary, 1t pro.
yides for a vote of the people Tor the
adoption or rejection OF the whoie act,
and in terms declares thai this aet : Is
to become operative and have fuli iofee
and effect" or "this act shall he void
and ofno effect, accordingly as the vote
is for or against it by the form of ballot
adopted to obtain this expression.


There is no provision in the act that 50
much of it as relates to holding the cleo
ton shall take effect on its passage, or at
any time before the election, but, on the
contrary, the whole act, the provision re-
lating to the election as well as every
other provision, was not to become op-
erative until after the election Hence
that part of the act that contemplates an
election was not in force at the date OF
the elec ion any more than any other pro-
vision OF the act, and votes p0llea on the
question were as blank paper. and all the
proceedings in counting, returning, can
vassing, and making a declaration Of the
result Of such supposed vote, were acts
done without the sanction Of law, and
void. If the Legislature desired so to
do, they might have provided that so
much Of the act as related to the election
should take effect upon its passage, or at
some time before the election--a necessa'
ry provision in all cases where it is dc
sired and permissible to take the sense Of
the people in reference to tho adoption
or rejection of a law, or their assent to
any proposition or rejection OF the same
therein contained.


This is not the FIRST instance Of such
Legislative oversight 1t has occurred in
other States, and IN every instance the
election and all the action based upon it
have been held invalid. 1t may have
been supposed that tho language Of the
act, that at the next general election to
be holden under the provisions, " etc !,
was tantamount to an express provision
that so much Of the act US related to the
election should take effect and be IN force
before the time fixed for the election
therein provided for; but such is not the
law.


This very question has been adjudica
ted by the highest judicial tribunals in
the country, and the ruling is uniform,
that " the fact that, by the terms Of the
statute, something is to be done under it
before the expiration Of the constitution
al period for it to take effect, will not
amount to q legislative direction that the
act shall take effect at that time, il the
act itself is silent as to the period when
it shall go into operation T" (Cooley's
Const tutional Limitations, p. l56.


In the case Of the Board Of Supervis'
ors, etc, VS. Ready, ct. al 34th Illinois
Reports. page 1893, this identical ques
ton was involved and the Supreme court
Of that State, say that lin order to take
an act out of the constitutional provision,
the Legislature must direct that the act
as whole and entirety shall take effect
at different time, and that it Is not suili.
cient that certain parts Of it might bear
a construction which would taken sepa-
rateIy, give those parts effect at an earlier
period. The direction must be made In
clear, distinct and unequvocal provis.
ion, and cannot be helped out by any sort
Of intendment or implication. {"


Another objection to the validity Of
this act, is found in the fact that the Gen
eral Assembly referred the question Of
whether the act should become law or
not, to vote Of the people. by its very
terms no part Of it was to 60 into effect
or become n law Of the State by virtue Of
the legislative power and will Of the Gen
eral Assembly, but the whole act, includ.
ing the provision relating to the election,
was made to depend on a vote Of the
people.


Under our constitution the power 10
make laws is vested exclusively in the
General Assembly, and this power can
not be delegated to a popular vote Of the
people, nor eau the General Assembly
refer the adoption or rejection of gen
cral law to the people OF the State. The
only proposition they could constitution
ally submit to the people for their adop.
ton or rejection was whether the credit
Of the State should lie loaned for the pur
poses, on the terms. and for the amounts
specified and all else in the act was mat
ter that could be enacted into q law only
by the General Assembly, and their effort
to avoid this constitutional obligation to
make the laws aud east the burden and
responsibility upon those who chose 10
attend the public polls, was in contraveu
ton OF the constitution, and renders
every provision of the act nullily.


But il there be any doubt about the lie
gal correctness Of the propositions above
stated, relating to The validity Of this act
there is one other proposition about
which, so far as am advised, there Is no
difference ofopinon.


BY the second section Of article D, OF
the constitution. the sessions OF the Leg
islature are declared to be biennial by
a further provision OF tho same section,
the first session under the present ccnsti.
tuition was to commence on the second
day of April, 1868. Tho General Assem-.
bly, met at that time, aud on the twenty
first day Of that month the act in ques.
ton was passed. Afterwards, and on
the twenty third day of July, 1865, they
took a recess until the seventeenth day
Of November, 1868, in pursuance Of the