Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

All the legislative power of New York State is vested in the legislature, subject only to express limitations in the New York Constitution.- People v. Flagg, 46 N. Y. 401.

The power of the legislature to legislate for the public safety, health, prosperity, morals, etc., is unlimited except as restrained by the explicit provisions of the constitution.- Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 657.

The legislative power of the legislature is unlimited, except as expressly restricted by constitutional provisions. The state constitution is not its source of power.- Bank of Chenango v. Brown, 26 N. Y. 467.

Where a duty in respect to a particular thing is enjoined by the Constitution upon the legislative branch of the government, and the mode of doing it is left exclusively to legislative discretion, even though the authority may have been previously exercised by the legislature, no limitation is thereby set to legislative power.- Grant v. Courter, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 232.

[23] Presumption of validity of statutes.

Presumption of validity of legislative determinations as to what is a city purpose,- see post, § 14, note [2].

State statutes not to be construed as applying to interstate commerce,- see post, § 25, note [18].

Validity of statutes forbidding discriminations,- see post, § 31, note [21].

An act of the legislature is presumed to be valid.- Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Tompkins, 176 U. S. 167, 20 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 336.

Save in a clear case of legislative error, a court of first instance may well decline to hold a statute unconstitutional.- Michie v. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. Co., 151 Fed. 694.

A statute can be declared unconstitutional only when it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that it conflicts with the fundamental law, and until every reasonable mode of reconciliation of the statute with the Constitution has been resorted to, and reconciliation has been found impossible, the statute will be upheld.- People ex rel. Henderson v. Supervisors, 147 N. Y. 1, 41 N. E. 563, 30 L. R. A. 74. To be held unconstitutional, a statute must plainly be at war with the fundamental law.- People ex rel. Sinkler v. Terry, 108 N. Y. 1, 14 N. E. 815.

The courts will not take proof of facts aliunde for the purpose of showing a statute, valid and regular on its face, to be unconstitutional.- Matter of N. Y. El. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 327, 3 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 401, affg. s. c. 7 Hun (N. Y.), 401.

The legislative discretion is not to be interfered with judicially by process of inference or implication.- Matter of Dugro, 50 N. Y. 513. If a state act is within the legitimate exercise of the legislative power, it is valid unless some restriction or limitation can be found in the Constitution itself.- People ex rel. McLean v. Flagg, 46 N. Y. 401.

It is the exercise of a judicial function of a most delicate nature, to declare an act of the legislature void, and it is not to be expected that courts will assume it unless the case be plainly and clearly in derogation of constitutional limitations; nor is it to be expected that they will be zealous or astute to find grounds to thwart or defeat the legislative will, or resort to subtle or strained constructions to bring a statute into conflict with the organic law. But it is to be expected that they will presume in favor of the constitutionality of a statute, giving a liberal construction to uphold it, and refrain from declaring legislative action void, unless such a conclusion cannot be avoided. Errors or mistakes in legislation are not to be referred to the judiciary for correction, or its aid invoked by men chafing under the restraints of particular statutes, to nullify the legislative power.Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 657.

A state act as to rates, in general terms, containing nothing to make its provisions applicable to interstate carriage of persons or property, will not be interpreted to have been intended by the legislature to so apply. A conflict between the Constitution and a statute will not be implied.- Dillon v. Erie R. Co., 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 116, 43 N. Y. Supp. 320.

A statute is presumed valid until its invalidity is adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction.- Richman v. Consolidated Gas Co., 114 App. Div. (N. Y.) 216, 100 N. Y. Supp. 81, affd. on other points, 186 N. Y. 209, 78 N. E. 871.

The court should start with the presumption that a law is constitutional, and not declare it unconstitutional unless it should become satisfied, beyond any doubt or hesitation, that it is clearly, plainly and palpably unconstitutional.- Clarke v. Rochester, 24 Barb. (N. Y) 446, affd. 28 N. Y. 605.

Courts will uphold statutes unless they are so plainly and palpably in conflict with the Constitution as to leave no doubt or hesitation in the judicial mind of their invalidity.- Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. v. Dey, 82 Iowa, 312, 48 N. W. 98, 12 L. R. A. 436n.

While an act of the legislature for the regulation of railroad corporations should never be held unconstitutional except in cases where the conflict with the Constitution is clear, manifest, and irreconcilable by any reasonable construction, yet, when it so conflicts with the

Constitution, courts have no alternative except to declare it invalid, for the obligation of courts to support the Constitution is imperative.— State v. Gt. Northern R. Co., 100 Minn. 445, 111 N. W. 289.

A court will not declare a corporation commission act unconstitutional, unless its unconstitutionality is beyond a reasonable doubt.. Every reasonable doubt, and every doubtful construction, must be rendered in favor of constitutionality.- McGwigan v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 95 N. C. 428.

[24] Burden of proving invalidity of statutes.

Plenary power in the legislature for all purposes of civil government is the rule. In inquiring whether a given statute is constitutional, it is for those who question its validity to show that it is forbidden.— People ex rel. Wood v. Draper, 15 N. Y. 532.

[25] Construction of statutes susceptible of two interpretations. In construing a statute which is susceptible of two constructions, one of which will render it valid and the other void, and both are equally reasonable, courts will adopt the construction which renders the act valid.-People ex rel. Sinkler v. Terry, 108 N. Y. 1, 14 N. E. 815.

If a railroad commission act be capable of two constructions, one of which is inconsistent with the Constitution, while the other is not in conflict with that instrument, the latter must prevail.-International & G. N. R. Co. v. R. R. Commission of Texas, 14 Tex. Ct. R. 42, 89 S. W. 961.

[26] When courts will pass on question of constitutionality.

Courts, whether of original or appellate jurisdiction, will not inquire into the constitutionality of an act of the legislature until a concrete case arises in which a decision of such a question is unavoidable for the determination of the case itself.- Demarest v. Mayor, 147 N. Y. 203, 41 N. E. 405; People ex rel. Simpson v. Wells, 99 App. Div. (N. Y.) 364, 91 N. Y. Supp. 219.

[27] Expediency and wisdom of enactments not matters for judicial determination.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in testing the constitutionality of an act of Congress, must confine itself to the power to pass it and may not consider evils which it is supposed will arise from the execution of the law, whether they be real or imaginary.- The Employers' Liability Cases, 207 U. S. 463, 28 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 141.

Federal Courts have nothing to do with the policy, wisdom, justice or fairness of a state enactment. Those questions are for the consideration of those to whom the state has entrusted its legislative power and

their determination of them is not subject to review or criticism by federal courts.- Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U. S. 161, 28 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 40.

Courts may not inquire whether any given act is wise or unwise, but may intervene only when such act infringes upon vested rights.— Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Tompkins, 176 U. S. 167, 20 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 336.

Courts can confine the legislature within constitutional authority, and when the questions are legitimately up, can and do exact a strict compliance with all the requirements of law leading to a forcible taking of the property of the citizen; but beyond this they have no discretion and are themselves bound to observe and enforce legislative provisions, whether they approve them or not. The only effective remedy is with the legislative department of the government.— Guest v. Brooklyn, 69 N. Y. 506, affg. s. c. 8 Hun (N. Y.), 97.

A statute should not be held unconstitutional unless its unconstitutionality is beyond a reasonable doubt. Courts do not sit in the review of the discretion of the legislature, or determine upon the expediency, wisdom or propriety of the legislative action in matters within the power of the legislature. Every intendment is in favor of the validity of statutes.- People ex rel. Bolton v. Albertson, 55 N. Y. 50.

In determining the constitutionality of an act fixing maximum charges for elevating, receiving, weighing, and discharging grain by elevators, the court must assume that the legislature had evidence before it which created a need for legislative regulation, and the court cannot review the decision of the legislature on that question.— Matter of Annon, 50 Hun (N. Y.), 413, 2 N. Y. Supp. 275.

In determining the constitutionality of an act fixing maximum charges for elevating, receiving, weighing and discharging grain by elevators, courts are confined to the single question whether the act in question exceeds the utmost limits of legislative power.- Matter of Annon, 50 Hun (N. Y.) 413, 2 N. Y. Supp. 275.

If the statute is one which the legislature had power to enact, appeal for relief must be to the legislature, and not by asking the court to sit in judgment upon its justice or expediency.- Hockett v. State, 105 Ind. 250, 5 N. E. 178.

[28] Interpretation governed by legislative intent.

The intention of the legislature constitutes the law, and may be as effectually manifested by what is necessarily implied as by what is expressed, and where there are conflicting manifestations of the legislative will, the last is controlling, even though it rests in necessary implication. Great Northern R. Co. v. U. S., 155 Fed. 945.

In construing a transportation statute, it is a legitimate inquiry to ascertain the purpose and object of the law, the evil to be remedied, and the wrong to be righted by its passage.- People v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 104 Ill. 476.

In construing a transportation regulation statute imposing penalties, the court cannot go beyond the meaning of the words and phraseology used, seeking an intent not certainly implied by them. Where there is a reasonable doubt as to the meaning of the words used in the statute, the court will not construe them so as to impose a penalty, nor will it extend by implication the purpose of the act, so as to cover cases not clearly within its meaning. If, however, the legislative intent is clear, that must prevail.- Hines v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 95 N. C. 434.

[29] Weight given to legislature's interpretation of its own powers.

In determining what is a city purpose,- see post, § 14, note [2].

In considering questions relating to the constitutional power of the legislature in matters of legislation, the courts give great weight to the legislature's own interpretation of such power, as the same is manifested by its continued and repeated exercise for a long period.McCleary v. Babcock, - Ind. 82 N. E. 453; State v. Gerhardt, 145 Ind. 439, 44 N. E. 469, 33 L. R. A. 313.

[30] Legislative grants construed favorably to the public right. Construction of transfer statutes,- see post, § 26, notes [59]-[61]. Legislative grants of franchises which are in any way ambiguous are to be construed strictly against the grantee.- Blair v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 400, 26 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 427.

When a franchise is susceptible of either of two constructions that interpretation must be adopted which is most favorable to the state.Coosaw Mining Co. v. S. Carolina, 144 U. S. 550, 12 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 689.

Grants of franchises are to be construed strictly, in favor of the public right. Charles R. Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 420.

Whenever privileges have been granted by the legislature to a public service corporation, and the grant comes under review in the courts, such privileges are to be construed strictly against the corporation and in favor of the public.- People ex rel. Third Ave. R. Co. v. Newton, 112 N. Y. 396, 19 N. E. 831, affg. s. c. 48 Hun (N. Y.), 477, 1 N. Y. Supp. 197.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »