Court Opinion

ID: 9827656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:44:33.679493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:34.183647
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the motion for rehearing it is vigorously contended that we did not give due consideration to the changes effected in the law by the adoption of the amendment to the Constitution as contained in the present provisions of article 11, § 5, thereof. We did consider this provision of the Constitution. While it is true that it confers broad powers on the inhabitants of the cities therein named in the matter of the adoption of charters for their government, it contains a limitation which, in our opinion, is fatal to appellee’s claim in this case. We quoted this proviso in our original opinion, and repeat it:
“Providing that no charter, or ally ordinance passed under said charter, shall contain any provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the state, or of the .general laws enacted by the Legislature of this state.”
Since the Constitution vests the legislative power of the state in the Legislature, any charter which would attempt to confer upon a' city council the power of legislation in respect to matters that are not of purely local concern would, in our opinion, be inconsistent with the Constitution, and necessarily an ordinance passed by the city authorities, and not of such character, would be ineffective. Our original opinion was devoted to an elaboration of the foregoing general propositions, and we do not think it necessary to discuss them further.