Слике страница

2. Imposts or duties on imports or exports, etc. Duties of tonnage,

keeping troops in time of peace, engaging in war, treaties, etc.


Legielative power. Congress.

1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

NOTE.-LEGISLATIVE POWER.-No one coördinate department can exercise the powers of the others.Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, 5 Pet., p. 1. The Federal constitutional limitations have no application to the State Constitutions.—Livingston vs. Moore, 7 Pet., p. 551. Legislative power of a State is only restrained by its constitutional limitation.- McDonough vs. Dannery, 3 D., p. 223; Calder vs. Bull, id., p. 388, Chase, J.; Barron vs. Baltimore, 7 Pet., p. 243; Menge vs. Gilmour, 1 Car. L. Rep., p. 34; Fletcher vs. Peck, 6 Cr., p. 87. The Federal Government is one of limited powers, but sovereign within the powers delegated.Spooner vs. McConnell, 1 M. L., p. 337. One Legislature, so far as respects general legislation, is competent to repeal any Act which a former Legislature was competent to pass; and one Legislature cannot abridge the powers of a succeeding Legislature. But if an act be done under a law, a succeeding Legislature cannot undo it.-Fletcher vs. Peck, 6 Cranch, p. 135. When a law is in its nature a contract, and absolute rights have vested under that contract, a repeal of the law cannot divest those rights.-Id. A legislative grant and confirmation vests an indefeasable, irrevocable title. It is neither revocable in its nature, nor held only durante bene placito.-Terret et al. vs. Taylor et al., 9 Cranch, p. 50. The Legislature cannot repeal statutes creating private corporations, or confirming to them property already acquired under the faith of previous laws, and by such repeal vest the property exclusively in the State, or dispose of the same to such purposes as they may please, without the consent or default of the corporation.-Id.

ConstitUTIONALITY OF LAWS.-If a legislative Act oppugns a constitutional principle the former must give way, and be rejected on the score of repugnancy, and it is the duty of the Court to declare the Act null and void.-Vanhorne vs. Dorrance, 2 Dall., p. 309. It is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution to divest one citizen of his right and vest it in another without full compensation, and if the Legislature may do so upon full indemnification, it cannot of itself constitutionally determine the amount of the compensation.-Id. If the Legislature pass a law within the scope of their constitutional power, the Court cannot pronounce it void merely because it is, in their judgment, contrary to the principles of natural justice.Calder et ux. vs. Bull et ux., 3 Dall., p. 386. A Court cannot sustain a suit founded on the allegation that an Act is a nullity in consequence of the impure motives which influenced certain members of the Legislature which passed the Act.-Fletcher vs. Peck, 6 Cranch, p. 131. The question whether a law is void for its repugnancy to the Constitution, ought seldom, if ever, to be decided in the affirmative in a doubtful case.-Id., p. 128. The Acts of Kentucky of February 27, 1797, and January 31, 1812, concerning occupying claimants of land, are in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, being in violation of the compact between Virginia and Kentucky.-Green vs. Biddle, 8 Wheat., p. 1. A law may be unconstitutional and void in relation to particular cases, and yet valid in its application to other cases within the scope of its provisions.Golden vs. Prince, 3 Wash. C. C. R., p. 313. Congress cannot by law assign to the judicial department any duties but such as are of a judicial character.—2 Dall., p. 409. An Act of Congress giving to the United States a preference over all other creditors, in all cases, is constitutional and valid.—United States vs. Fisher et al., 4 Cranch, p. 358.

FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATURES.-It is a constitutional power of Government to give the U. S. preference in cases of insolvency.-U. S. vs. Fisher, 2 Cr., p. 358; s. C., 1 W. C. C., p. 4. Every Government has power to take care of its own revenues, to protect it by extraordinary securities, and collect it by extraordinary remedies.-Livingston vs. Moore, 7 Pet., p. 655; s. C., Bald., p. 424. The prerogative powers which belonged to the King of England, as "pareus patrice,” remain with the States, and cannot be exercised by the Federal Courts.-Fontain vs. Ravend, 17 H., p. 393, Taney, C. J. A State Legislature, prior to adoption of the Federal Constitution, had power to pass bills of attainder and confiscation, unless prohibited by the State Constitution.-Cooper vs. Telfair, 4 D., p. 14. If public bodies, not organized or admitted to the Union, undertake to act as States, they must be put down by Federal or State power.-Scott vs. Jones, 5 H., p. 343. In case of a grant of power to Congress, without prohibiting the State to act, the State may


continue to act in the premises till Congress shall fully legislate concerning it.-U. S. vs. New Bed. Bridge, 1 W. & M., p. 401. A grant of power to Congress, by the Constitution, or when the nature of a power requires it to be exercised by Congress exclusively, all power over the subject is as completely taken away from the State Legislature as if it was expressly forbidden to act on it.-Sturges vs. Crowningshield, 4 Wh., p. 193; U. S. vs. New Bed. Bridge, 1. W. & M., p. 401. The right of States to pass bankrupt laws is not extinguished by the passage of a general bankrupt law by Congress; it is only suspended so far as the two laws conflict.-Id. Where Congress has exclusive power over a subject it is incompetent for a State Legislature to add to its provisions.- Prigg vs. Penn., 16 Pet., p. 539. States may not impede or in anywise control the operation of constitutional laws of Congress to give effect to constitutional powers of the Federal Government.-McCullough vs. Maryland, 4 Wh., p. 316. Certain laws of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, declared constitutional in the famous “License Cases."-5 Howard, p. 504. One part of a statute may be constitutional and valid and another not.-Duer vs. Small, 4 Bl. C. C.; s, C., Am. L. R., p. 500. In what cases the grant of jurisdiction to punish misdemeanors on tide waters is exclusively in the Federal Government.-See Corfeld vs. Coryell, 4 W. C. C., p. 371. A State Legislature may validate an act accomplished which it had the power to authorize to be done.-Campbell vs. City of Kenosho, 5 Wall., p. 194. Act to authorize a municipal corporation to subscribe to the stock of a railroad corporation is val unless restrained by the State Constitution.McCoy vs. Co. of Washington, 7 Am. L. R., p. 193. Acts repugnant to Constitution absolutely void. Legislature is subordinate to Constitution.-Vanhorne's Lessee vs. Dorrance, 2 D., p. 308; Marburry vs. Madison, 1 C. R., p. 137. A right, however ancient, not founded in contract or secured by the Constitution, may be divested by the law of a State.-Bennett vs. Boggs, Bald., p. 60.

THE JUDICIAL NOT TO BE IMPEDED BY THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.--Congress cannot assign other than judicial duties to the Judiciary.-Hayburn's Case, 2 D., p. 410, note; U. S. vs. Todd, 13 H., p. 52. Congressional Act cannot annul judgment of Supreme Court or impair private rights thereby determined.Penn, vs. Wheeling and Bel. Bridge Co., 18 H., p. 421.

[ocr errors]

State Legislature is not by the Federal Constitution
prohibited from exercising judicial functions.-Satter-
lee vs. Matthewson, 2 Pet., p. 380; Livingston vs.
Moore, 7 Pet., pp. 469, 668. A State Legislature can-
not determine whether a Federal Court has jurisdic-
tion.-U.S. vs. Peters, 5 Cr., p. 115. A special legisla-
tive Act authorizing Administrator to sell lands to pay
debts is not the exercise of judicial power.- Watkins vs.
Holmes, 16 Pet., p. 26; same principle, Florentine vs.
Burton, 2 Wall., p. 210. Right of Congress to confer
quasi legislative powers on the Executive -U. S. vs.
The Francis Hatch, 13 Am. L. R., p. 289. Political
department of Government alone may recognize or re-
fuse to recognize a new Government in
try.-Kennett vs. Chambers, 14 H., p. 38. Government
may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty (Am.
Ins. Co. vs. Canter, 1 Pet., p. 511) and may legislate
for such territory.-Id.



1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of House of

Represenmembers chosen every second year by the people of the tatives. several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.

2. No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

3. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included witbin this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumera

tion shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New Yorksix, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Del. aware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

4. When vacancies happen in the representation from any State, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

5. The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers, and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

NOTE.-See Secs. 1343–1347, and notes, p. 285, ante, Vol. 1, Art., “ Elections for Representatives;" Stats. 1871-2, p. 910. See, also, Congressional Districts.-Id., Sec. 117.

CONTESTING ELECTION.-The matters necessary to be set out in a petition for contesting an election specified in Varnum's Case.-1 Cong. Elec. Cases, p. 112; Leib's Case, id., p. 165; Knox vs. Blair, 2 Cong. Elec. Cases, p. 521. State law is the rule of decision in a question of the legality of an election.-Wright vs. Fuller, 2 Cong. Elec. Cases, p. 152; Daily vs. Eastbrook, id., p. 299; Upton's Case, id., p. 368; Sleeper vs. Rice, id., p. 223. Statute must be complied with in serving notice, reducing deposition to writing, and signing the same by witnesses.--Spaulding vs. Mead, 1 Cong. Elec. Cases, p. 157; McFarland vs. Purviance, id., p. 131. Sitting member need not have list of illegal votes served on him.-Vallandigham vs. Campbell, 2 Cong. Elec. Cases, p. 223. Contestant may present evidence, when taken, on the qualifications, duties, and conduct of the officers of election (id.), and must, within a reasonable time, offer his proofs in support of his petition for the seat of the sitting member.-Cabell vs. Randolph, 1 Cong. Elec. Cases, p. 134. Admissibility of evidence in contested cases.-See Vallandigham vs. Campbell, 2 Cong. Elec. Cases, p. 223; Daily vs. Easta. brook, id., p. 299; Blair vs. Barrett, id., p. 308. State law regarding the taking of depositions—as to person who may administer oaths, and how notice is given to take testimony-governs. The voter himself may tes. tify.—Loyall vs. Newton, 1 Cong. Elec. Cases, p. 520. Fact not stated in petition cannot be testified to or of: Lieb's Case, 1 Cong. Elec. Cases, p. 165. It was held in Brooks vs. Davis that testimony must be taken un

« ПретходнаНастави »