* *

was properly published, was, of itself, a complete and perfect enactment. This distinction is made clear by Mr. Justice Wright in the case of Dalby v. Wolf, 14 Iowa, 228, wherein he says, in speaking of a like objection to what is known as the "Herd Law": "Neither of these positions is tenable. They utterly mistake the intention of the constitutional provision quoted, and misapprehend the scope and spirit of the decisions, in this and other states, which hold that the legislature cannot refer to the people the question whether a particular act shall become a law. In all the cases referred to, it will be found that the question submitted was whether or not a proposed law should become operative. Thus, in the first case cited, it was provided by the statute that 'the electors shall determine, by ballot, at the annual election to be held in November next, whether this act shall, or not, become a law.' If a majority voted against it, then it was to be null and void; if for it, then it was to take effect on the day named. And such legislation was expressly condemned by this court in Santo v. State, 2 Iowa, 165, which was recognized and followed in Geebrick v. State, 5 Iowa, 491. The law in question, however, is not obnoxious to this objection. The popular will is expressed under and by virtue of a law that is in force and effect, and the people neither make or repeal it. They only determine whether a certain thing shall be done under the law, and not whether said law shall take effect. The law had full and absolute vitality when it passed from the hands of the legislature; and the people, under the 'rule of action' therein given for their government, proceeded to act. The same rule-the same law-was given to all the people of the state, to all parts of it; the same method for taking the vote was presented for all counties; the same penalties were attached. As a result a different regulation, of a police

*

骨 *

nature, might exist in one county from what existed in another; just as, one county might determine, by a popular vote, that a higher rate of tax should be levied than that provided by the general law." In the case of Weir v. Cram, 37 Iowa, 653, the principle announced in the foregoing opinion was reaffirmed, and the distinction we have drawn observed. In the latter case it is said: "In one case the people of the counties are permitted to make certain local police regulations, to have the force of law; in the other, a law is enacted by the legislature, which can have no force in any county until sanctioned by the vote of the people thereof." The act in question is complete in itself, requiring nothing further to give it validity, and does not depend upon the popular vote of the people, or, if it does, depends upon this vote simply to determine the limits of its operation. The rule we have established, first announced in this state more than thirty years ago, is supported by the overwhelming weight of authority. See Black Intox. Liq. section 45, and cases cited; State v. Parker, 26 Vt. 357; Commonwealth v. Bennett, 108 Mass. 27; Commonwealth v. Dean, 110 Mass. 357; Gloversville v. Howell, 70 N. Y. 287; State v. Circuit Court of Gloucester Co., 15 Atl. Rep. 272; Savage v. Commonwealth, 5 S. E. Rep. 565; Schulherr v. Bordeaux (Miss.) 8 So. Rep. 201; Gordon v. State (Ohio) 23 N. E. Rep. 63; State v. Pond (Mo. Sup.) 6 S. W. Rep. 469; Feek v. Township Board (Mich.) 47 N. W. Rep. 37; Territory v. O’Connor (Dak.) 41 N. W. Rep. 746; Cooley, Const. Lim. (6th Ed.) pp. 137-145, and cases cited. Some few cases are to be found announcing a contrary doctrine. See Parker v. Commonwealth, 6 Pa. St. 507; Maize v. State, 4 Ind. 342; and Ex parte Wall, 48 Cal. 279. The case in Pennsylvania, however, was afterwards overruled in Locke's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 491. And the case in Indiana is practically overruled in Groesch v. State, 42 Ind.

547. The California case has also been distinguished, and is weakened, as an authority, in the case of People v. McFadden (Cal.) 22 Pac. Rep. 851. The case of Santo v. State, 2 Iowa, 203, is not in conflict with the views we have expressed. Nor is the case of Geebrick v. State, 5 Iowa, 493, as explained in Dalby v. Wolf, to be regarded as establishing a contrary doctrine. State v. Beneke, 9 Iowa, 203, simply follows the rule announced in Santo v. State. The case of State v. Weir, 33 Iowa, 134, recognizes the doctrine announced in the Geebrick Case, that "a law can no more be repealed than it can be made by a vote of the people."

In the case of City of Des Moines v. Hillis,55 Iowa, 643, this court, in construing chapter 56, Laws 1878, authorizing cities to provide by ordinance for payment of salaries to their officers, in lieu of fees theretofore retained by such officers under prior statutes, held the act was not void as a delegation of the power of legislation to the cities, Justice Beck using this language: "Counsel insist that the act in question is void for the reason that the provisions as to the salary of the officers can only take effect upon the vote of the city council, a law of the state thus made dependent upon the action of a municipality, which, it is insisted, is in conflict with the constitution. The statute confers authority, to be exercised at their discretion, upon city councils. They may execute the power conferred, or withhold its execution. That is all there is of it. The city has authority from the state to pass the ordinance. Surely it cannot, with fairness, be said that the operation of, and validity of, the statute depend upon the action of the city." This, we believe, is the latest expression of this court on the subject now under consideration, and it is directly in line with the views heretofore expressed in this opinion.

That it is competent for the legislature to empower municipalities to make ordinances and adopt regulations for controlling, licensing or prohibiting the traffic in intoxicating liquors, is plain, and is not questioned in this case. It is entirely in accord with the principle of local self-government that the power to enact police regulations on matters so closely connected with the good order and prosperity of a city should be lodged with those best qualified to judge of measures adapted to meet the emergencies of these particular situations. And it is competent for the legislature, in its wisdom, to invest them with the authority necessary to the administration of the special purposes of their creation. As said by Judge Cooley in his work on Constitutional Limitations (6th Ed.) pp. 144, 145: "Municipal charters refer most questions of local government, including police regulations, to the local authorities, on the supposition that they are better able to decide for themselves upon the needs as well as the sentiments of their constituents than the legislature can possibly be and are therefore more competent to judge what local regulations are important, and also how far the local sentiment will assist in their enforcement. The same reason would apply in favor of permitting the people of the locality to accept or reject for themselves a particular police regulation, since this is only allowing less extensive powers of local government than a municipal charter would confer; and the fact that the rule of law on that subject might be different in different locali. ties, according as the people accepted or rejected the regulation, would not seem to affect the principle, when the same result is brought about by the different regulations which municipal corporations establish for themselves in the exercise of an undisputed authority." See, also, State v. Noyes, 10 Fost. (N. H.) 279; Beach, Pub. Corp. section 72; State v. Wilcox, 42 Conn. 364;

Tiedman Lim. p. 638; Black Intox. Liq. section 217; Dil lon Mun. Corp. sections 9, 44, and authorities cited. The policy of creating local public and municipal corporations for the management of local concerns runs back to the earliest period of our colonial history. It is exhibited in all our legislation, and expressly or impliedly guarantied by our state constitutions. Commonwealth v. Roxbury, 9 Gray, 503. See, also, the learned opinion of Judge Cooley in People v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44, wherein he treats of the history of towns and townships, their place in our system of government, and their rights of local self-government. See, also, State v. Pond, supra; Commonwealth v. Bennett, 108 Mass. 27; Savage v. Commonwealth (Va.) 5 S. E. Rep. 565; and the learned decision of the subject in State v. Circuit Court of Gloucester Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 15 Atl. Rep. 272; Clark v. City of Rochester, 28 N. Y. 605. In the case of Commonwealth v. Bennett, supra, it is said: "It is equally within the power of the legislature to authorize a town, by vote of inhabitants, or city, by vote of the city council, to determine whether the sale of a particular kind of liquors within its limits shall be permitted or prohibited. This subject, although not embraced within the ordinary power to make by-laws and ordinances, falls within the class of police regulations which may be intrusted by the legislature to municipal authority." It is useless to cite additional authorities, many of which are in the books, upon these propositions, for the doctrine is already the established rule in this state. In the case of Morford v. Unger, 8 Iowa, 82, the principle is recognized, and applied to a statute which provided that it should not go into effect until accepted by the city council of the city of Muscatine. And in the case of State v. King, 37 Iowa, 462, it is said: "Counsel maintain that the law conferring the power to pass the ordinance in question is, under the decision