Slike strani


Effect of repeal.-A general statute without negative words will not repeal a previous statute which is special, although its provisions be different. A repealing clause in an unconstitutional statute is inoperative. The effect of a repealing clause is to end all proceedings, unless under an exception. The law does not favor a repeal by implication, 4 yet, though a repeal by implication is not favored, when the inconsistency is clear the first statute is held repealed.5 In the construction of statutes the earliest remains in force unless the two are clearly inconsistent and repugnant,6 in so far as it is repugnant. The rights of a citizen on a pending suit founded solely on statute is terminated by repeal unless there be a saving clause in the repealing act.8

1 Rounds v. Waymart Borough, 81 Pa. St. 395. 2 Tims v. State, 26 Ala. 165; Meshmeier v. State, 11 Ind. 482; State v. La Crosse, 11 Wis. 51.

3 Copeland v. Village of Passaic, 7 Vroom, 382. 4 People v. Webster, 3 Neb. 323. 5 Golding v. College of Chambersburg, 8 Vroom, 258. 6 White v. City of Lincoln, 5 Neb. 505; People v. Weston, 3 Neb. 323. 7 Case of Barber, 86 Pa. St. 392. 8 Bennet v. Hargus, 1 Neb. 421.

Judicial interpretation.—The constitution is a law, and the judiciary, from the very nature of the powers given it, must interpret it.1 Courts may declare the action of the legislature unconstitutional when such action violates the supreme law, but they cannot aroid the effects of non-action. The construction of the constitution and statutes of one State, given them by the highest judicial tribunal thereof, is to be followed by the courts of other States. Courts have a right to decide on the validity of statutes of other States. If an act be manifestly a breach of the constitution, it is the duty of the court to declare it void.5 City ordinances in conflict with the constitution or statutes are invalid.6

1 Nougues v. Douglass, 7 Cal. 65.
2 Myers v. English, 9 Cal. 341.
3 Franklin v. Twogood, 25 Iowa, 520.
4 Stoddart v. Smith, 5 Binn. 355.
5 Eakin v. Raub, 12 Serg. & R. 330.
6 Mayor &c. v. Hussey, 21 Ga. 80.

Police powers of States.-Private interests must be made subservient to the general interest of the community,? so the power of Sates over police regulations is supreme.2 A State law intended as a regulation of police is not a regulation of commerce,3 but the police power cannot be extended over interstate transportation of the subjects of commerce.4 A State may regulate the position of vessels in her harbors or rivers,5 or may regulate the speed of steamers or railroad trains. 6

States may prohibit the intro luction of slaves,7 or exclude paupers, criminals, diseased or infirm persons, and persons afflicted with contagious diseases,8 and may exact a bond to in. demnify from expense of maintaining passengers after arrival;9 but to exclude passengers who are in possession of their faculties, and neither paup’rs nor criminals, is a regulation of commerce which the State cannot exercise. 10 So, a State cannot legislate to prevent the importation of cattle during certain seasons of the year, this being more than an exercise of its police powers ;'' but it may regulate the introduction of game during certain months ;12 but forbidding the exportation of game, lawfully killed within the State, is unconstitutional. 13 A State may forbid the sale of an illuminating liquid below a certain standard, 14 or regulate the use of explosives and dangerous oils and substances, 15 or may remove the same.16 The police power extends to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, morals, and quiet of all persons, and the protection of all property in the State.17 This clause does not interfere with the rights of States to enact inspection, quarantine, and health laws, as well as laws regulating internal commerce, 18 or commerce local in its character, 19 as requiring the master of a vessel to report the names, ages, and origin of passengers.20 Inspection laws are not burdens on trade, nor unjust discriminations, so long as they are reasonable;?' but a statute requiriug vessels to furnish statements of the name and owner is void as to United States vessels.22So, a statute relating to the survey of sea-going vessels is a regulation of commerce, and void.23

1 Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 62; Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 84; Taunton v. Taylor, 116 Mass. 251; Watertown v. Mayo, 109 Mass. 315.

2 Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 62; Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 138. 3 Smith v. Maryland, 18 How.71; New York v. Miln, 11 Peters, 102.

4 Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465. Contra, Yeazel v. Alexander, 58 I1l. 254. 5 Vanderbilt v. Adams, 7 Cowen, 348.

6 People 0. Jenkins, 1 Hill, 469; Toledo &c. Co. v. Deacon, 63 nl. 91. 7 Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Peters, 449; Osborn v. Nicholson, 1 Dill. 235.

8 Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283; Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 13; State v. S. S. Constitution, 42 Cal. 578; Lemmon v. People, 20 N. Y. 607; 26 Barb. 270.

9 Candler v. Mayor of New York, 1 Wend. 493; State v. S. S. Consti. tution, 42 Cal. 578; Henderson v, The Mayor, 92 U.S. 265; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 572. ' Lut see New York v. Staples, 6 Cowen, 170. 10 State v. S. S. Constitution, 42 Cal. 578. 11 Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465; S. C. 6 Am. L. R. 265, denying Yeazel v. Alexander, 58 Ill. 254; Stevens v. Brown, Ibid. 289; Wilson v. Kansas C. St. J. & C.R.R. 60 MO. 184; Husen v. Hannibal & St. J.R.R. Co. 60 Mo. 226; Mercer 0. Kansas C. St. J. & C. R. R. Co. 60 No. 397; Chicago &c. R. R. Co. v. Gassaway, 71 Ill. 570; Somerville v. Marks, 58 Ill. 371. 12 State v. Randolph, 1 Mo. App. 15. 13 State v. Saunders, 19 Kan. 127. 14 Patterson v. Kentucky, l1 Ch. L. N. 183; 7 Am. L. R. 83. 15 Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36; U. S. v. Dewitt, 9 Wall. 41. 16 Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Peters, 617. 17 Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 147; Toledo &c. Co. v. Jacksonville, 67 III. 37; Ex parte Shrader, 33 Cal. 279; Davis v. Central R. R. Co. 17 Ga. 323. 18 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; New York v. Miln, 11 Peters, 102; Conway v. Taylor, 1 Black, 633; State v. Fosdick, 21 La. An. 256. 19 State v. S. S. Constitution, 42 Cal. 578. 20 New York v. Miln, 11 Peters, 131. 21 People v. Harper, 11 Ch. L. N. 191. 22 Sinnot v. Davenport, 22 How. 227; Foster v. Davenport, 22 How. 244. Contra, Commrs. of Pilotage v. The Cuba, 28 Ala. 185. 23 Foster v. Master &c. of N. 0.94 U. S. 246.

Police powers. It is the province of the legislature to determine the exigency calling for the exercise of police powers, and of the courts to decide the proper subjects of its exercise,'

and it cannot by any contract divest itself of this power,2 nor of its discretion in its exercise.3 The police powers comprehend all those general laws of internal regulation necessary to secure peace, good order, health, and the comfort of society,4 private interests being subservient to the general interests of the community. The legislature may forbid an individual from undertaking a dangerous employment except at his own risk,6 or it may prohibit a hazardous or pernicious business, although it affects prior contracts.7 So, it may regulate the sale of naplıtha or inflammable oils.8. A subsequent statute may prohibit the transportation of dead animals under a charter allowing their use as fertilizers.9 So, a statuto prohibiting a lottery is valid, though the charter gave a right to establish one. 10 A State legislature may pass laws regulating the observance of the Sabbath, 11 or may

give a remedy against nuisances.12 Every citizen holds his land subservient to such police regulation as the legislature in its wisdom may enact for the general welfare.13 The State may regulate the carrying on of business within its limits.14 So, State laws may impose reasonable police regulations for the protection of markets against the sule of commodities unfit for commerce, 15 or may reg: ulate the sale of any commodity the use of which would be detrimental to the morals of the people.16. The legislature may regulate the sale of spirituousor malt liquors;

17 or prohibit their sale, if it does not interfere with vested rights;18 or impair the obligations of the charter created for the purpose of their manufacture.19 So, a State may tax liquor dealers,20 or may license the sale of liquors, although a charter contains a prohibitory clause 21 It may establish reasonable regulations for the operation of mines, 22 and under the police power may require qualifications for professional graduates.23 When applied to corporations the police power is subject to constitutional limitations, and it cannot conflict with the charter;24 but provisions for penalties and forfeitures in a charter are not mere matters of contract.25 The legislature may authorize cities and towns to prohibit the erection of wooden buildings as a protection of person and property against fire.26 Under the police power the legislature may authorize a railroad company to lay its tracks in the streets of a city.27 An ordinance regulating the transportation of heavy merchandise in a city is valid.28

1 Lake View v. Rose Hill Cemetery, 70 III. 191; Daniels v. Hilgard, 77 Ill. 640.

2 Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25. 3 Boyd v. Alabama, 94 U. S. 645; Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U.S. 33.

4 Ex parte Shrader, 33 Cal. 279; Philadelphia &c. R. R. Co.o. Bow. ers, 4 Houst. 506; Beer Co.v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25. 5 Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 62; Comm. v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53. 6 Kirby v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. 76 Pa. St. 506. 7 People v. Hawley, 3 Mich. 330. 8 U. S. v. Dewitt, 9 Wall. 41. 9 Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 70 Ill. 634; 97 U. S. 669. 10 Moore v. State, 48 Miss. 147. 11 Bohl v. State, 3 Tex. Ct. App. 683. 12 Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 669; 70 Ill. 634; Brady u. Weeks, not yet reported. 13 Brown v. Keener, 74 N. C. 711; Poolv. Trexler, 76 Ibid. 297. 14 Higgins v. Rinker, 47 Tex. 381. 15 State v. Fosdick, 21 La. An. 256; N. H. &c. T. B. Co. v. Bunnell, 4 Conn. 59; Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 669.

16 State v. Gurney, 37 Me. 156. 17 Higgins v. Rinker, 47 Tex. 393. 18 Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 15 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 119; Metrop. Bd. of Excise v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 657; Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25; Butler v. Walker, 80 III. 345; Comm. v. Intox. Liq. 115 Mass. 153. 19 Commonwealth v. Intox. Liq. 115 Mass. 153. 20 Sinclair v. State, 69 N. C. 147. 21 Dingman v. People, 51 Ill. 277. 22 Daniels v. Hilgard, 77 III. 640; Dingman v. People, 51 Iul. 277. 23 Regents v. Williams, 9 Gill. & J. 365; State v. Heyward, 3 Rich. 389; Logan v. State, 5 Tex. Ct. App. 306. 24 Lake View v. Rose Hill Cemetery, 70 m. 191; State v. Fosdick, 21 La. An. 256. 25 State v. Railroad Co. 3 How. 534; 12 Gill & J. 399. 26 Salem v. Maynes, 123 Mass. 372. 27 Perry v. N.O.R.R. Co. 55 Ala. 613. 28 People v. James, 16 Hun. 426.

§ 2. The sessions of the Legislature shall commence at twelve o'clock m. on the first Monday after the first day of January next succeeding the election of its members, and, after the election held in the year eighteen hundred and eighty, shall be biennial, unless the Governor shall, in the interim, convene the Legislature by proclamation. No pay shall be allowed to members for a longer time than sixty days, except for the first session after the adoption of this Constitution, for which they may be allowed pay for one hundred days. And no bill shall be introduced, in either House, after tbe expiration of ninety days from the commencement of the first session, nor after fifty days after the commencement of each succeeding session, with. out the consent of two-thirds of the members thereof.

Similar restrictions as to introduction of bills-Ark. V, 34; Colo. V, 19; MU. III, 27; Mich. IV, 28; Tex. III, 37.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »