Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

poration of the Detroit and Pontiac Railway, and in 1848 an act authorizing the incorporation of the Oakland and Ottawa Railway, and in 1855 further authorizing the consolidation of the two above named companies.

In both the Acts of 1834 and the Act of 1848 provision was made giving the State the right to purchase the property of these two railroads upon the basis therein mentioned. In the Act of 1834 this basis was the cost of constructing the road, plus 14%; in the Act of 1848 the basis was the actual value of the stock issued by the company. By the Act of 1855, however, this whole property, in my judgment, was brought within the provisions of the Act of 1834, and the basis upon which the State would have the right to purchase this property would be the one therein designated.

The State also has the right, under these several laws, to demand of the railroad company a true statement of the cost of the construction of its road.

In my opinion, in order to safe-guard the State's interests in this matter, it is necessary that it be placed in a position to fully protect itself, and should have the right to insist upon all of the provisions of the contract being carried out. I, therefore, submit for your consideration the following:

First. That it is proper for the Legislature to demand of the company a statement of the cost of construction and equipment of its line between Detroit and Grand Haven, now owned by the Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railroad, the stock of which is controlled by the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada.

Secondly. That a constitutional amendment be proposed, authorizing the State to purchase and operate this road under the contract of 1834. Thirdly. That the State should also be placed in a position where it can commence proceedings to condemn this so-called franchise or contract, if it sees fit to do so.

I respectfully ask that these matters be called to the attention of the Legislature by your Excellency.

Very sincerely,

(Signed) ALEX. J. GROESBECK, Attorney General.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM STATE OFFICERS.

The following communication from the Attorney General was received and read:

State of Michigan, Attorney General's Department,

Lansing, January 27, 1917.

Hon. Charles S. Pierce, Clerk House of Representatives, Lansing, Michigan.

Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of the 24th inst., transmitting a copy of House resolution No. 22. Said resolution requests my opinion as to whether a local act, which repeals a portion of a prior

local act, may be amended without a referendum. Section 30 of article V of the State Constitution, as originally drafted and adopted, forbade the Legislature to pass any local or special act in any case where a general act can be made applicable, and further provided that no local or special act should take effect until approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon in the district to be affected. At the last general election, an amendment to this section was submitted to a vote of the people and adopted. The section, as thus amended, permits the Legislature, by a two-thirds vote, to repeal a local and special act in effect January 1st, 1909, without a referendum. As I read the resolution of the House, the point at issue is whether the constitutional provision, as amended, may be so construed as to permit the Legislature to pass, without a referendum, a measure repealing a portion only of a prior local act in force on the 1st of January, 1909.

I believe the question, as thus stated, must be answered in the negative. I think that the purpose of the constitutional amendment, above referred to, was to permit the Legislature to repeal in toto local and special acts that were in force when the new Constitution went into effect. Authority to abrogate a portion only of such prior local act is not in terms granted; nor do I think that such power may be said to be implied from the grant of specific authority to repeal measures of the character indicated. Unquestionably section 30 of article V of the Constitution as it now stands does not permit the Legislature to amend a local act. In the majority of cases, however, the repeal of a portion of such a measure would result in substantially modifying the entire enactment and in many instances might effect its operation in the same way as would an affirmative amendment. The power to repeal clearly does not include the power to alter, modify or amend; and inasmuch as the repeal of a portion of any statute must necessarily have the effect of a modification or alteration, in the vast majority of cases at least, I see no escape from the conclusion that the language of the Constitution, as amended by the people at the last election, may not be interpreted as conferring authority upon the Legislature to repeal a part of a local act and permit the remainder to continue in force and effect. Respectfully yours,

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS.

Mr. O'Brien introduced

A. J. GROESBECK,
Attorney General.

House bill No. 119, entitled

A bill to provide for the better protection and preservation of game and fur-bearing animals and game birds protected by the laws of this State, and to provide a method by which the open season for the taking thereof may be suspended, abridged or otherwise regulated in any desig nated area of the State, and to provide a penalty for the violation of its several provisions.

The bill was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the Committee on Game Laws.

Mr. Deuel introduced

House bill No. 120, entitled

A bill making appropriations for building, equipping and operating a fish hatchery in Emmet county for hatching game and food fishes for planting in the inland and border waters of the State of Michigan, and to provide a tax to meet the same.

The bill was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the Committee on Fish and Fisheries.

Mr. M. H. Smith introduced

House bill No. 121, entitled

A bill to provide for the cleaning out and maintaining of established drains and to levy a tax therefor.

The bill was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the Committee on Drainage.

Mr. Ivory introduced

House bill No. 122, entitled

A bill to amend section 13 of Act No. 101 of the Public Acts of 1909, entitled "An act to revise the law relative to the care of the feebleminded and epileptic."

The bill was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the Committee on State Affairs.

Mr. Lemire introduced

House bill No. 123, entitled

A bill to amend sections 2, 3 and 4 of Act 325 of the Public Acts of 1913, entitled "An act to provide for the recall of certain elective officers and for the election to fill vacancy created thereby."

The bill was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the Committee on Elections.

Mr. Anderson introduced
House bill No. 124, entitled

A bill to amend sections 2, 3, 6 and 7 of Act 236, Public Acts of 1915, the same being an act to protect fish in the inland waters of this State, and to regulate the manner of taking, possession, transportation, size and sale of fish when taken from said waters, to provide penalties for the violation of this act, and to repeal all acts and parts of acts conflicting therewith.

The bill was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the Committee on Fish and Fisheries.

Mr. Woodruff entered the House and took his seat.

MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS.

Mr. McArthur made written request for the printing of
House bill No. 13, entitled

A bill to repeal Act No. 91 of the Session Laws of 1911, entitled "An act to provide for the assessment and the collection of a specific tax upon the class of credits founded upon and evidenced by mortgages and liens upon real property, and to repeal all acts and parts of acts in contravention thereto."

The request was referred to the Committee on Printing.

Mr. McArthur made written request for the printing of

House bill No. 15, entitled

A bill to repeal Act No. 113 of the Public Acts of 1907, entitled "An act to prohibit the spearing or taking of fish by any device whatever, except with hook and line, in Cedar River in Ingham county, in Grand River in the counties of Ingham and Eaton, and in the waters of Spring Brook in the county of Eaton, or in the waters of or inlet or outlet of Pine Lake, Ingham county, and to provide a penalty for violations thereof."

The request was referred to the Committee on Printing.

Mr. Warner moved that the House adjourn.
The motion prevailed, the time being 9:20 o'clock p. m.

The Speaker declared the House adjourned until Tuesday at 2:00 o'clock p. m.

CHARLES S. PIERCE,

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

EIGHTEENTH DAY.

Lansing, Tuesday, January 30.

The House was called to order by the Speaker.

2:00 o'clock p. m.

Religious exercises were conducted by Rev. Horace Cady Wilson, of the Presbyterian Church, of Lansing.

The roll of the House was called by the Clerk, who announced that a quorum was present.

Messrs. Deuel, Eaton, Fox, Gayde, Glaspie, Hassenger, Lamphere, McGillivray, Martin, Nelson, Olmsted, Petermann, Ross, Stearns, Toepel and Weissert were absent with leave.

Messrs. Farrier, Sours and Ward were absent without leave.

Mr. Chapin asked and obtained an indefinite leave of absence for Mr. Sours.

Mr. Green asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. Farrier from today's session.

Mr. Frost presented

Petition No. 26.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS.

Petition of Henry Grooters and 103 other residents of Kent county, favoring an amendment to Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1915, so as to permit the taking of certain fish at any time.

The petition was referred to the Committee on Fish and Fisheries.

Mr. Robinson presented

Petition No. 27.

Petition of C. A. Warner and 15 other veterans of the Civil War favor

« AnteriorContinuar »