 For our purposes we must assume that, if a state of facts could exist that would justify such legislation, it actually did exist when the statute now under consideration was passed. For us the question is one of power, not of expediency. If no state of...  The Central Law Journal - Page 2511877Full view - About this book
 | United States. Congress. House - United States - 1877 - 526 pages
...here. For our purposes we must assume that if a state of facts could exist that would justify such legislation, it actually did exist when the statute now under consideration was ]*sseil. For us the question is one of power, not of expediency. If no state of circumstances could... | |
 | David Rorer - Railroad law - 1884 - 996 pages
...here. For our purpose we must assume that, if a state of facts could exist that would justify such legislation, it actually did exist when the statute...circumstances could exist to justify such a statute, then we nuy declare this one void, because in excess of the legislative po\ver of the state. But if it could,... | |
 | Law reports, digests, etc - 1887 - 1086 pages
...legislative as to valid judicial action." St. L»ui* v. Ferry Co. 11 Wall. 423 (78 US Ijk. 30, L. ed. 192). "The question is one of power, not of expediency ....in excess of the legislative power of the State." Mann v. Ittinoit, 94 US 132 (Bk. 34, L. ed. 87). The defendant, being a corporation created hy a law... | |
 | Law reports, digests, etc - 1889 - 988 pages
...legislative power, we cannot judicially condemn it. It was said by Chief Justice WAITE in Munn v. Illinois: "For us the question is one of power; not of expediency If no state of circumstances can justify such a statute, then we may declare this one void; but if it could, we must presume it... | |
 | Law reports, digests, etc - 1894 - 1206 pages
...exist which would justify such legislation, It actually did exist when the statute under cousideratlon was passed. For us the question is one of power, not...such a statute, then we may declare this one void; but, if it could, we must presume it did." In Peel Splint Coal Co. v. State (W. Va.) 15 S. Б. 1000,... | |
 | James Bradley Thayer - Constitutional law - 1895 - 1214 pages
...here. For our purposes we must assume that, if a state of facts could exist that would justify such legislation, it actually did exist when the statute...must presume it did. Of the propriety of legislative inter- L fere n ce within the scope of legislative power, the legislature is the exclusive judge. Neither... | |
 | Abraham Clark Freeman - Law reports, digests, etc - 1903 - 1144 pages
...certain statute, then we may declare this one void because in excess of the legislative power of this state; but if it could, we must presume it did. Of...propriety of legislative interference, within the scope of the legislative power, the legislature is the exclusive judge." This rule is very fully discussed and... | |
 | California. Supreme Court - Law reports, digests, etc - 1903 - 866 pages
...statute, then we may declare this one void because in excess of the legislative power of this state; biit if it could, we must presume it did. Of the propriety of legislative interference, within the scope of the legislative power, the legislature is the exclusive judge." This rule is very fully discussed and... | |
 | Abraham Clark Freeman - Law reports, digests, etc - 1903 - 1132 pages
...States court states the rule thus : "If no state of circumstances could exist to justify a certain statute, then we may declare this one void because in excess of the legislative power of this state; but if it could, we must presume it did. Of the propriety of legislative interference,... | |
 | Indiana. Supreme Court, Charles Frederick Remy, George Washington Self, Philip Zoercher, William H. Adams, Mrs. Edward Franklin White, Emma Mary May - Law reports, digests, etc - 1910 - 858 pages
...under considState ». Barrett— 172 Ind. 169. eration was passed. For us, the question is one of 15. power, not of expediency. If no state of circumstances...power of the State. But if it could, we must presume that it did. Of the propriety of legislative interference within the scope of the legislative power,... | |
| |
