In re Answer of the Justices to the Senate
| Decision Date | 07 March 1938 |
| Citation | 299 Mass. 617,13 N.E.2d 787 |
| Parties | In re ANSWER OF THE JUSTICES TO THE SENATE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
In the matter of the Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court in answer to questions propounded by an order of the Senate of the Commonwealth as to the constitutionality of a bill amending the charter of the Hingham Water Company.
Answers to questions refused.
Whereas, the Hingham Water Company was incorporated and granted a franchise to supply water in the town of Hingham by chapter 139 of the acts of 1879, and was granted additional powers and its franchise extended by chapter 59 of the acts of 1881, chapter 88 of the acts of 1886, and chapter 168 of the acts of 1924; and
Whereas, at the time of granting the original franchise, section 41 of chapter 68 of the General Statutes provided that ‘Every act of incorporation passed after the eleventh day of March in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal, at the pleasure of the legislature,’ which provision in substance has been carried along in successive general revisions of the statutes as Public Statutes, chapter 105, sections 2 and 3, Revised Laws, chapter 109, section 3, and General Laws, chapter 155, section 3, and since November 5, 1918, has also appeared in article 59 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth; and
Whereas, in sections 11 and 13 of chapter 139 of the acts of 1879, the town of Hingham was granted the right to purchase the corporate property, rights, privileges and franchises of said corporation by provisions which leave uncertain and undetermined sundry matters, including the method of ascertaining the price to be paid for the purchase aforesaid; and
Whereas, there is pending before the General Court a bill, printed as Senate, No. 406, amending the charter of said corporation by clarifying and making more definite certain of its provisions, and in certain other respects, a copy of which is herewith submitted; and
Whereas, grave doubt exists as to the constitutionality of said bill, if enacted into law; accordingly, be it
Ordered, that the senate require the opinions of the Honorable the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court on the following important questions of law:
1. Would the provisions of said bill, if enacted into law, be constitutional?
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, in what respects would the provisions of said bill, if enacted into law, be unconstitutional?
Irving N. Hayden, Clerk.
A true copy. Attest:
Irving N. Hayden, Clerk of the Senate.
To the Honorable the Senate of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court have considered the questions upon which their opinion is required by the order of February 24, 1938, a copy of which is hereto annexed.
The Hingham Water Company was incorporated by St.1879, c. 139. That charter has been amended several times. The proposed bill confers upon the town of Hingham, if authorized by a specified proportion of voters voting at a town meeting, the right to purchase all the corporate property, rights, privileges and franchises of that company on payment of a sum to be ascertained by a somewhat complicated method of calculation. The statement of facts contained in the order is meager. No specified question of law is proposed for answer. The bald inquiry is whether the proposed bill, if enacted, would be constitutional; and, if that inquiry is answered in the negative, the further inquiry is, in what respects it would be unconstitutional. The principles of the Constitution which the proposed bill may be thought to offend are not indicated in any way.
The attention of the Honorable Senate is respectfully drawn to the settled practice of the Justices with respect to questions propounded under chapter 3, article 2, part 2, of the Constitution of this Commonwealth. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Opinion of Justices to Senate
...a definite statement of the point of difficulty which has been developed through hearings and discussion." Answer of the Justices, 299 Mass. 617, 620, 13 N.E.2d 787 (1938). We have no guidance regarding those provisions of the United States Constitution which the possible vagueness of the p......
-
Advisory Opinion to Governor Request of June 29, 1979, In re
...granted similar authority to issue advisory opinions at the request of another branch of government. See Answer of the Justices in the Senate, 299 Mass. 617, 13 N.E.2d 787 (1938); In re Request for an Advisory Opinion, 402 Mich. 83, 260 N.W.2d 436 (1977); Stevens, Advisory Opinions Present ......
-
Opinions of the Justices to the Governor
...of the Commonwealth. Justices have construed this language to mean that the question must be specific. See Answer of the Justices, 299 Mass. 617, 619-620, 13 N.E.2d 787 (1938). Justices have declined to answer a general question as to the constitutionality of a bill when the question did no......
-
Answer of the Justices to the House of Representatives
...law" set forth in this order is an important question of law, we are guided by the observations expressed in Answer of the Justices, 299 Mass. 617, 620, 13 N.E.2d 787, 788 (1938), where the Justices said: "(T)he important questions of law must be explicitly stated: they cannot be left to eq......