special act empower another than the guardian of a minor's estate to sell the same, but may ratify a void transfer made by a railroad. 10 The legislature may require all pleadings to be sworn to, or may regulate what shall be presumptive evidence in civil cases, 11 or may authorize the dismissal of an appeal when the appellant has escaped.12 It may regulate the practice of medicine, 183 or may encourage the rearing of sheep and discourage keeping dogs, and couple the provisions with a penalty.14 The legislature may make railroads liable for injury to live stock, 15 or may authorize the use of a street of a city for railroad purposes, 16 or may regulate the speed of railroad trains in cities. 17 The legislature may exempt from liability for acts done under military_authority,1 18 or may pay bounties to veteran soldiers.19 It may impose a penalty to compel a strict observance of a statute requirement.20 It may provide for punishment for counterfeiting, 21 or authorize the transfer of convicts to private individuals, and may lease the labor of future convicts.22

1 Thorp v. Rutland &c. R. R. Co. 1 Williams, (Vt.) 140.

2 Duval v. McLoskey, 1 Ala. 708; Kemp v. Thorpe, 3 Ala. 291; Pollard v. Files, 3 Ala. 47; Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Mayor &c. v. Eslava, 9 Port. 577; and authorize the construction of wharves on navi gable rivers-State v. Green, 4 Ga. 26.

3 Gentile v. State, 29 Ind. 409; State v. Hockett, Ibid. 302.

4 Kilgore v. Magee, 85 Pa. St. 401.

5 Davis v. State, 7 Md. 151.

6 Silver v. People, 45 Ill. 224.

7 Ward v. New England &c. Co. 1 Cliff. 565; Brenham v. Davidson, 51 Cal. 352.

8 Lane v. Nelson, 79 Pa. St. 407; nor authorize an executor to make investment in Confederate bonds-Houston v. Deloach, 43 Ala. 364; Powell v. Boon, Ibid. 459, overruling Watson v. Stone, 40 Ala. 451.

9 Lincoln v. Alexander, 52 Cal. 482.

10 Hatcher v. Toledo &c. R. R. Co. 62 Ill. 477.

11 Honore v. Home Nat. Bank, 80 Ill. 489; Hand v. Ballon, 2 Kern. 41. 12 Brown v. State, 5 Tex. Ct. App. 126.

13 Logan v. State, 5 Tex. Ct. App. 306.

14 Mitchell v. Williams, 27 Ind. 62.

15 Davis v. Central Railroad, 17 Ga. 323.

16 Clinton v. Cedar Rapids, 24 Iowa, 455; Carson v. Central R. R. Co. 35 Cal. 325.

17 Chicago &c. R. R. Co. v. Reidy, 66 Ill. 43; Chicago &c. R. R. Co. v. Haggerty, 67 Ill. 113.

18 Clark v. Dick, 1 Dill. 8.

19 Washington Co. v. Berwick, 56 Pa. St. 466.

20 Chicago &c. R. R. Co. v. Reidy, 66 Ill. 43.

21 People v. White, 34 Cal. 705.

22 State v. McCauley, 15 Cal. 429.

Restriction on legislative powers.-The power of enacting general laws cannot be delegated to the people; 1 it cannot delegate any of its powers unless authorized to do so by the constitution.2 It is to judge of the expediency of a law, and cannot refer the same to be decided by a popular vote.3 It cannot divest itself or a succeeding legislature of any power necessary to the well-being of the State, and a release of the right to tax in a grant of a charter, since the amendment to the constitution, would not bind a succeeding legislature.5 One legislature cannot be bound by the acts of another; and every legislative body may modify or abolish the acts of its predecessor, and no act is irrepealable except it be in the form of a contract. The legislature has no power to interpret existing laws which do not apply to its own duties; 8 nor can it legalize an act which it could not have authorized to be done; so, to cure a defective proceeding, it must have had the power to pass the original act authorizing the proceeding. 10 It cannot exercise judicial powers, 11 as authorizing city authorities to collect an assessment already declared invalid; 12 nor compel a city to pay a claim against it which it is under no obligation, moral or equitable, to pay, nor require a court to render judgment on proof of its amount; 13 nor can it confer jurisdiction upon the Federal courts or prescribe the means or mode of its exercise; 14 nor can it authorize school land commissioners to treat as rescinded purchases of school sections, and to sue and receive possession of such lands. 15 The legislature has no power to change official titles as given in the constitution. 16

9

1 People v. Collins, 3 Mich. 343; State v. Copeland, 3 R. I. 33.

2 Willis v. Owen, 43 Tex. 41.

3 Ex parte Wall, 48 Cal. 279.

4 Daly v. Harris, 33 Ga. 38.

5 Jones & N. Manuf. Co. v. Comm. 69 Pa. St. 137.

6 Brightman v. Kirner, 22 Wis. 54.

7 Bloomer v. Stolley, 5 McLean, 158.

8 Tilford v. Ramsey, 43 Mo. 410.

9 City of Hastings v. Thorne, 8 Neb. 163; May v. Holdridge, 23 Wis. 93; Hepburn v. Curts, 7 Watts, 300.

10 State v. Squires, 26 Iowa, 340.

11 Beal v. Beall, 8 Ga. 210.

12 Mayor &c. v. Horn, 26 Md. 194; Matter of Dorr, 3 R. I. 299.

13 Hoagland v. Sacramento, 52 Cal. 150; Hasbrouck v. Milwaukee, 13 Wis. 37.

14 Greely v. Townsend, 25 Cal. 613.

15 Hardy v. Branch Bank of Montgomery, 15 Ala. 722.

16 Deitz v. City of Central, 1 Colo. 323.

Local option laws.-An act may take effect on a future contingency, and that contingency 1 may arise from the voluntary act of others.2 It may provide that it go into effect at one time or another, absolutely or conditionally. A local law may be made to depend on the will of the voters, and an act to take effect on counting of the popular vote is not a delegation of legislative power,5 as the submission of an incorporation act of a city to the vote of the people, or the power to the voters of a county to select the county seat. That a legislative act depends on the popular vote for its operation does not render it unconstitutional. The provision that it be submitted to a vote of the people is an essential part of the law, and if void it vitiates the whole.9 Where a law submits the division of a county to the vote of the people it is constitutional. 10 Where a city was authorized by its charter to issue its bonds, but the charter was silent as to the mode of the exercise of the power, a vote had under an ordinance duly passed prior to the adoption of the new constitution must be regarded as had in pursuance of law. The power to make laws cannot be conferred by the legislature on the people, or on any portion of them.12 1 Blanding v. Barr, 13 Cal. 343; Hobart v. Butte Co. 17 Cal. 23; Savings & L. Soci. v. Austin, 46 Cal. 477; Ex parte Wall, 48 Cal. 279.

2 Guild v. Chicago, 82 Ill. 472.

3 Hobart v. Supervisors, 17 Cal. 23.

4 Hobart v. Supervisors, 17 Cal. 23; Lammert v. Lidwell, 62 Mo. 188; Sandford v. Ct. Com. Pl. of Morris, 36 N. J. 72; Gloversdale v. Howell, 70 N. Y. 287; State v. Beneke, 9 Iowa, 203.

5 Robinson v. Bidwell, 22 Cal. 379.

6 Smith v. McCarthy, 56 Pa. St. 359.

7 Upham v. Supervisors, 8 Cal. 378. And see Ex parte Shrader, 33 Cal. 279.

8 Louisville &c. R. R. Co. v. Davidson, 1 Sneed, 637.

9 Meshmeier v. State, 11 Ind. 482.

10 State v. Elwood, 11 Wis. 17.

11 Mason v. Shawneetown, 77 Ill. 533.

12 Ex parte Wall, 48 Cal. 279; Houghton v. Austin, 47 Cal. 646

Validity of statutes.-That a law has been enacted affords little presumption that it is constitutional.1 Courts may go behind the statute and have recourse to the legislative journals,2 and may receive other evidence than the record to prove the passage of a bill, and a mere clerical error in the journal will not vitiate the statute.5 Courts will not disregard an act because the journal of one or both houses fails to show its passage in strict compliance with all the directions of the constitution, it being In other respects perfect and unobjectionable; and when a law is signed by the speakers of both houses, and approved by the governor, it is presumed to have been passed in conformity to constitutional requirements.7 But courts cannot go behind the record to inquire into the regularity of the proceedings on the passage of a bill. The constitutionality of a law is a bare question of power-motives cannot be inquired into; 9 so, improper motives and designs are not to be imputed.10 Courts cannot declare a law unconstitutional as being against the spirit of the constitution,11 nor have they anything to do with the wisdom or sound policy of an act. 12 They cannot declare an act void, however unjust or impolitic it may be, 13 or however unnecessarily severe 14 or contrary to the principles of natural justice, 15 if within the scope of legislative power, unless it is clearly subversive of the constitution,16 and does not affect vested rights.17 Whether as contrary to natural right, or the principles of civil liberty, query.18 The legislature may pass all laws it deems essential to the public welfare, and it is the arbiter of the policy of its laws, which courts cannot restrain.19 Although an act is unconstitutional and void, it will estop one who accepts it, and is notice to third persons.20

1 Sadler v. Langham, 34 Ala. 311.

2 Jones v. Hutchinson, 43 Ala. 721; Burr v. Ross, 19 Ark. 250; Super visors v. Heenan, 2 Minn. 330; Gormley v. Taylor, 44 Ga. 76; Turley v. Logan Co. 17 Ill. 151.

3 Fowler v. Pierce, 2 Cal. 165.

4 Larrison v. Peoria &c. Co. 77 Ill. 11. 5 Supervisors v. Heenan, 2 Minn. 330. 6 Blessing v. Galveston, 42 Tex. 641.

7 Larrison v. Peoria &c. Co. 77 Ill. 11.

8 People v. Devlin, 33 N. Y. 269. 9 Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 502. 10 Baltimore v. State, 15 Md. 376.

11 Patterson v. Yuba Co. 13 Cal. 182; Stockton &c. R. R. Co. v. Stock ton, 41 Cal. 162.

12 Winter v. Jones, 10 Ga. 190. And see Trustees of Bishop's Fund v. Rider, 13 Conn. 104.

13 County Court v. Griswold, 58 Mo. 175.

14 Sears v. Cottrell, 5 Me. 251; Hallenbeck v. Hahn, 2 Neb. 396; Chance v. Marion Co. 64 Ill. 66.

15 Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 399; Macon &c. R. R. Co. v. Little, 45 Ga. 370. 16 Chance v. Marion Co. 64 Ill. 66; Sears v. Cottrell, 5 Me. 251; Court of St. Louis Co. v. Griswold, 58 Mo. 175; Hallenbeck v. Hahn, 2 Neb. 996; Turner v. Althaus, 6 Neb. 54; Stockton & V. R. R. Co. v. Stockton, 41 Cal. 160; People v. Burbank, 12 Cal. 354; Smith v. Judge of Twelfth Dist. 17 Cal. 551; Santo v. Iowa, 2 Iowa, 208; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Riblet, 66 Pa. St. 164; Squares v. Campbell, 41 How. Pr. 193; Macon &c. R. R. Co. v. Little, 45 Ga. 370.

17 Trustees of Bishop's Fund v. Rider, 13 Conn. 104.

18 State v. Wheeler, 25 Conn. 297.

19 Walker v. Whitehead, 43 Ga. 538. And see Beall v. Beall, 8 Ga. 210. 20 Robinson v. Bank of Darien, 18 Ga. 65.

Statute in part invalid.—A statute may be in part valid and in part invalid,1 and it may take effect as to the part which is constitutional; 2 and a section may be considered stricken out and not vitiate the portions which are constitutional. A provision conceded to be unconstitutional would not destroy the whole law. That part only is void, unless so connected that it cannot be presumed the legislature would have passed the one part without the other.5 So, the whole act would not be void if the provisions not unconstitutional are complete in themselves, or if they are entirely independent of each other, or if the unconstitutional provision is not necessary for the maintenance of the whole; and if the provisions of the act are divisible, but not if incapable of separation, 10 or if the nature of the unconstitutional part is such as to render it of vital importance to the whole,11 or if it enter entirely into the scope and design of the law, and it is impossible to maintain it without the obnoxious provision, 12 or where it is clear that either clause could not have been enacted without the other, 13 or where the void provisions have such a connection as to be essential to the law-the whole is void.14 So, the whole act is void, where the void provisions were evidently designed as inducements to the valid provisions; i5 for where a provision is unconstitutional, another dependent on it falls with it. 16 So, the whole act is void where only one object is aimed at, and all the void provisions are contributory to it.17

1 Duer v. Small, 4 Blatchf. 263; Mobile &c. R. R. Co. v. State, 29 Ala. 573; Ex parte Pollard, 40 Ala. 77; People v. Hill, 7 Cal. 104; People v. Burbank, 12 Cal. 393; Lathrop v. Mills, 19 Cal. 513; Robinson v. Bidwell, 22 Cal. 397; Mills v. Sargent, 36 Cal. 379; Rood v. McCarger, 49 Cal. 117; McClosky v. Chamberlin. 37 N. J. 388; Mauch Chunk v. McGee, 81 Pa. St. 433; State v. Copeland, 3 R. I. 33; State v. Snow, 3 R. I. 64; Allegheny County Home, 77 Pa. St. 77; State v. Wheeler, 25 Conn. 299.