SHERWOOD
J.
The
following is the substance of the averments contained in the
information filed in this case:
That
"the village of Mackinac was reincorporated by an act of
the legislature of said state, duly approved April 1, 1875.
That section 12 of said act provides that 'the president
of said village, ex officio, shall be a member of the board of supervisors of the county of Mackinac
and he shall attend all the meetings of said board, and be
entitled to vote upon all matters that
may be brought before said board of supervisors; and for
attending all such meetings he shall receive the same
compensation authorized by law to be paid to township
supervisors for similar services, to be audited by the board
and paid by the county.' That at an election for village
officers of said village, held on the fourth day of March
A.D.1884, William P. Preston, of said village of Mackinac,
was duly elected to the office of president of said village,
and was duly qualified, and entered upon the discharge of the
duties of said office. That claiming to act by virtue of said
office, and by virtue of the provisions of said section 12 of
said act, and without any other authority or right whatever,
he has usurped, intruded into, and assumed to act and does
act as a member of the board of supervisors of said county,
attending the meetings of said board, and voting upon matters
brought before said board for its official action. That on
the fourteenth day of May, A.D.1884, at a meeting of said
board of supervisors, held at the court-house in the city of
St. Ignace, the said William P. Preston, claiming the right
to sit and act as a member of said board by virtue of his
office as president of said village of Mackinac, moved that a
ballot for chairman of said board of supervisors be taken.
That thereupon said Preston received a majority of all the
votes cast for said office, and was thereupon declared
elected chairman of said board, and immediately assumed the
duties thereof, and has, from that time to the present,
continued to unlawfully hold, use, and exercise, and doth
still hold, use, and exercise, the office of chairman of said
board of supervisors, and to act as a member of said board at
the county of Mackinac, aforesaid, without any other
authority than hereinbefore set forth, and in contempt of the
people of the state of Michigan, and to their great damage
and prejudice. Whereupon the said attorney general prays the
advice of the court here in the premises, and for due process
of law against the said William P. Preston, in this behalf,
to be made to answer to the said people by what warrant he claims to hold, use, exercise, and enjoy the
said office of member and chairman of the board of
supervisors of the said county of Mackinac."
To this
information the respondent appeared, and interposed a general
demurrer, and the people joined in demurrer; and upon the
issue thus made the cause was submitted upon the hearing.
There
is but one question presented for our consideration upon this
record, viz.: Is section 12 of act No. 303 of the Local Laws
of 1875 unconstitutional? it being the section above quoted.
The people are the source of unlimited power. The
constitution is not a grant of power, but a limitation upon
its exercise by the agents of the people, who compose the
legislative branch of the government. The legislature would
have the power to establish a board of supervisors in each
county of the state, with such representation therein from
the several townships, villages, and cities constituting the
county as it might deem proper, had there been nothing
contained in the constitution upon the subject. And the
question is now presented, in what respect and to what
extent, has the constitution limited this power of the
legislature? In the examination of this question it is to be
borne in mind that before a law can be held invalid, it must
be a plain violation of some provision contained in the
constitution. Scott v. Smart's Ex'rs, 1
Mich. 307; People v. Gallagher, 4 Mich. 244;
People v. Blodgett, 13 Mich. 127; People v. Mahaney,
Id. 481; Whallon v. Judge of Ingham Co. 51
Mich. 503; S.C. 16 N.W. 876. "In cases of doubt every
possible presumption not clearly inconsistent with the
language and subject-matter is to be made in favor of the
constitutionality of the act" in question. Sears v.
Cottrell, 5 Mich. 259; Tabor v. Cook, 15 Mich.
323; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 273; Cooley,
Const.Lim. and Cases cited at page 182.
The
provisions of our state constitution relating to the subject
under discussion are as follows: Article 11, � 1, provides
that "there shall be elected annually on the first
Monday of April, in each organized township, one supervisor
***...
