State v. Moore
Decision Date | 24 June 1905 |
Citation | 88 S.W. 881,76 Ark. 197 |
Parties | STATE v. MOORE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court, JESSE C. HART, Chancellor.
Affirmed.
Robert L. Rogers, Attorney General, and Jas. H. Stevenson, for appellant.
Charles Jacobson, for appellee.
OPINION
The Attorney General brought this suit in the Pulaski Chancery Court to restrain the Auditor of State from drawing his warrant upon funds appropriated by an act of the General Assembly approved March 17, 1905, the title and preamble of which read as follows: etc. The act then proceeds to appropriate the sum of $ 25,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, for the purposes provided for, specifying the items for which the same shall be expended, viz., salaries and contingent expenses of officers of the State Guard, for expenses of military encampments, practice, etc., rent of armories and storage rooms, and for other expenses in maintaining the organization of the State Guard, and handling and preserving the military equipments. The validity of the act is called in question on the ground that in neither branch of the Legislature, on the vote for final passage, did the bill receive in its favor the votes of two-thirds of the members of each house, as required by section 31 of article 5 of the Constitution of the State. That section of the Constitution and the preceding section read as follows:
It is conceded that the bill received in its favor the votes of a majority, but not two-thirds, of the members of each house. The Attorney General contends that the subject-matter of the appropriation does not fall within either of the exceptions expressed in section 31, and required for its passage the affirmative vote of two-thirds of both houses of the General Assembly. We are therefore asked to declare that on account of the failure to receive the necessary affirmative vote the bill never became a law. On the other hand, it is contended for appellee that the appropriation was for the "necessary expenses of government."
The duty and power of courts to declare an act of the legislative body void because in conflict with the Constitution, either from want of constitutional power to enact it or from lack of observance of some of the forms or conditions imposed by the Constitution, is so plain and well established that we indulge in no discussion of that question at this time. It is equally well established, however, that such power should be exercised by the courts with great caution, and only when the terms of the Constitution have been plainly violated. Chief Justice MARSHALL, who first authoritatively announced the doctrine that courts possess such power, subsequently said: Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87, 6 Cranch 87, 3 L.Ed. 162. A similar expression is given by the same learned court in the case of Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213, 12 Wheat. 213, 6 L.Ed. 606, where Mr. Justice WASHINGTON said: Judge COOLEY, in treating the same subject, says: Cooley's Const. Lim. (7th Ed.) p. 236. The same learned author at another place (page 255) says:
The same presumption is indulged in favor of the legislative enactment with reference to the form of the statute and the constitutional prerequisites and conditions as to the subject-matter of the legislation. Waterman v. Hawkins, 75 Ark. 120, 86 S.W. 844; Cooley, Const. Lim. p. 195.
This court, in the case of State v. Sloan, 66 Ark. 575, 53 S.W. 47, in upholding the validity of an act providing for the building of a new state capitol, the bill for which had not received the votes of two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature, said: -- citing Davis v. Gaines, 48 Ark. 370; 3 S.W. 184; Boyd v. Bryant, 35 Ark. 69, 37 Am. Rep. 6; Carson v. Levee District, 59 Ark. 513, 27 S.W. 590; Powell v. Durden, 61 Ark. 21, 31 S.W. 740. To the same effect, see St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. v. Grayson, 72 Ark. 119, 78 S.W. 777. The court in the Sloan Case did not mean to lay down the doctrine, nor do we now, that the power of the Legislature to determine what is a necessary expense of government is arbitrary, bounded by no limitations, and absolutely beyond control by the judicial department. We can readily call to mind subjects for appropriation so obviously beyond the scope of what may be deemed necessary expenses of government that the court could, and in duty should, ignore a legislative determination, and declare as a matter of law that the same do not fall within that class. The words "necessary expenses of government," as employed in the Constitution, do not refer to the necessity, expediency, or propriety for the amount of the appropriation, but are intended as a classification of a character of expenses which may...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Byles
... ... U.S. 296; 21 Cyc. 365 ... 3. The ... act may be sustained on two grounds: (1) on the police power ... of the State for regulation; (2) on the power of taxation for ... revenue. 179 U.S. 270; 50 L. R. A. 685; 68 F. 750; 8 Cyc. 875 ... and note 31; 92 Me. 453; 8 ... act is prohibitive of competition and void. 149 F. 913; 88 P ... 459; 97 P. 129-131; 104 P. 401-5; 104 S.W. 153 ... Moore, ... Smith & Moore, amici curiae ... 1. The ... appellee was not a peddler within the act. 12 Cush. 393; 114 ... Mass. 267; ... ...
-
Rice v. Palmer
... ... commission or qualified, he departed this life. That on the ... 31st day of October, 1904, the Governor of the State, by ... commission of that date, appointed and commissioned the ... plaintiff to be the circuit clerk of the county during the ... term made ... determination is binding upon the courts. State v ... Sloan , 66 Ark. 575, 53 S.W. 47; State v ... Moore , 76 Ark. 197, 88 S.W. 881 ... If ... these are not judicial questions to be determined by the ... courts alone, how can it ... ...
-
Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co. v. State
...92 U.S. 259; 134 U.S. 418; 152 U.S. 133; 156 U.S. 649; 198 U.S. 45; 136 N.Y. 577; 144 N.Y. 529; 145 N.Y. 32; 153 N.Y. 188; 157 N.Y. 116; 76 Ark. 197; 64 Ark. 424. The defendant should been permitted to offer proof as to the reasonableness of the statute upon which the indictment was based, ......
-
St Louis Southwestern Railway Company v. State of Arkansas Ex Rel Hal Norwood
...F. Ins. Co. 66 Ark. 466, 477, 45 L.R.A. 348, 51 S. W. 633; Waterman v. Hawkins, 75 Ark. 120, 126, 86 S. W. 844; State v. Moore, 76 Ark. 197, 201, 70 L.R.A. 671, 88 S. W. 881. It does not seem to us that § 20, when taken in connection with the context, requires to be so construed as to inter......