33 Iowa 134 | Iowa | 1871
It has been held by this court that the general assembly cannot legally submit to the people the proposition whether an act should become a law or not, and that the people have no power, in their primary or individual capacity, to make laws. They must do this by representatives. Santo et al. v. The State of Iowa, 2 Iowa, 203; Geebrick v. The State of Iowa, 5 id. 492. In the former case it was held that section eighteen of the act for the suppression of intemperance, approved January 22, 1855, did not, in its largest and broadest sense, submit to the people of the State the question whether such act should become a law; and that the act without the ratification of the people would have taken effect as a law. In the latter case it was held that the act to license and regulate the sale of malt, spirituous and vinous liquors, chapter 222, Laws of 1857, receives its vitality and force from a vote of the people, and is, therefore, unconstitutional and void. That act contained general provisions for licensing the sale of liquors, and repealed all acts and parts of acts thenin force coming in conflict with its provisions; but provided, “ That the act entitled an act for the suppression of intemperance,’ approved January 22,1855, be not and is not by this act repealed in any county of this State, unless the people of such county, by a vote taken as herein provided, shall adopt this act. The effect of a vote in favor of the act of 1857, it was held, was two-fold. First: to repeal the provisions of the act of 1855. Second: to give force and efficacy to the act of 1857. It is impossible, in principle, to distinguish the act of 1870 from that of 1857, or to discover how a vote in its favor can be productive of different results. The act of 1870 makes it unlawful to sell ale, wine, malt liquors or beer, except as provided in
Under section 1583 of the Revision, the sale of beer is lawful. The act of 1810 makes the sale of beer unlawful. The effect of a vote in favor of the act of 1810 is to adopt a provision in direct conflict with section 1583, and hence to repeal it by necessaiy implication. In Geebrick v. The State, supra, it is held that ££ a law can no more be repealed than it can be made, by the vote of the people.”
The act of 1810 further provides : “ Section 2 of chapter 154 of the laws of the twelfth general assembly is hereby repealed, so far as it relates to counties adopting the provisions of this act, but to none other.” It is apparent that this repealing clause can be vitalized only by the vote of
It becomes unnecessary to consider whether the act was adopted by the legal voters of Cerro Gordo county.
Reversed.
