Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/670

 658 FEDEEAIi EEPOBTEE. �respect to whioh the parties immediately içterested may fairly be supposed more competent to judge of their needs than any central authority. Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 143 ; City of Patterson v. Society, etc., 2e N. J. 385; Cheany v. Hoo- ser, 9 B. Monroe, 330; Berlin v. Oorham, 34 N, H. 266. �Even 80 grave a inatter as taxation bas always in the state of Georgia even without special constitutional provision been delegated to cities, towns, and county organizations. Bruns- wicky, Finney, 54 Ga. 317 ; Powers v. Dougherty Co. 23 Ga. 65. �The rule applicable to the delegation of power by a legis- lature is laid down with great clearness in the case of the Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Clinton Co. 1 Ohio, St. 77. �The true distinction, therefore, is between the delegation of power to make the law which necessarily involves a dis- cretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution to be exercised under and in pur- suance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made. �The constitution of the state of Illinois, article 4, § 1, declares that "the legislative power should be vested in a general assembly, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives," etc. Article 13, § 7, of the same consti- tution, declared that "the general assembly shall pass laws for the inspection of grain for the protection of producers, shippers, and receivers of grain." The legislature of Illinois, with this constitutional provision in force, passed an act to establish a board of railroad and warehouse commissioners. This board was empowered to fix the rate of charges for the inspection of grain, and the manner in which the same should be coUected, and to fix the amount of compensation to be paid the chief inspecter and other of&cers, etc. It was objeoted that this was an unwarrantable delegation of legislative power. But the supreme court of that state held that the right to pass inspection laws belonged to the police powers of the govern- ment, and the legislature had the authority to arrange the dis- tribution of said powers as the public exigencies might require, apportioning them to local jurisdictions as the law-making power desraed appro2iriate, and comraitting the exercise of the ����