
    Ex parte MITCHELL.
    (No. 2633.)
    (Supreme Court of Texas.
    June 23, 1915.
    Motion for Rehearing Overruled June 26, 1915.)
    1. Constitutional Law <@=>65 — Distribution os' Powers — Delegation os Legislative Eunctions — Prohibition os Pool Ro oms — Statutes .
    Acts 33d Log. c. 74 (Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, arts. 6319a-6319n), providing that the qualified voters of any county or political subdivision thereof may determine by an election to be held for that purpose on petition of 10 per cent, of such voters of a county, or of 20 per cent, of such voters of a political subdivision thereof, whether or not pool rooms or pool halls shall be prohibited in such county or subdivision, is unconstitutional as amounting to a delegation by the Legislature of its own proper power, imposed upon it by the Constitution, which it alone may exercise, and which it may not commit to any other agency.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. § 116; Dee. Dig. <@=> 65.]
    2. Statutes <@=>75 — Suspension—Constitutionality.
    Acts 33d Leg. c. 74 (Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, arts. 6319a-6319n), providing that the qualified voters of any county or political subdivision thereof may determine by an election to be held for that purpose, on petition of 10 per cent, of such voters of a county, or of 20 per cent, of such voters of a political subdivision thereof, whether or not pool rooms or pool halls shall be prohibited in such county or subdivision, is violative of Const, art. 1, § 28, providing that no power to suspend laws in this state shall be exercised except by the Legislature, since it authorizes the suspension by the voters of a county or subdivision of the general statute licensing the operation of pool halls within the state.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. § 77; Dec. Dig. <@=>75.]
    Hawkins, J., dissenting.
    Habeas corpus on the relation of A. H. Mitchell against the sheriff of McLennan County.
    Relator discharged.
    Williams & Williams, of Waco, for relator.
   PHILLIPS, C. J.

The case presents the

question of the constitutionality of the referendum act of the Thirty-Third Legislature, authorizing the qualified voters of any county, or certain political subdivisions of a county, to determine by an election whether pool rooms or pool halls should be prohibited therein, and making it an offense to there operate or maintain them if the result of the election be in favor of their prohibition.

The constitutionality of the act is assailed upon two grounds: (1) That it amounts to a delegation by the Legislature of its own legislative power, imposed upon it by the Constitution, which it, alone, must exercise, and which it may not commit to any other agency; (2) that it authorizes the suspension of a general law of the state-by the voters of a county, or subdivision of a county, namely, the statute licensing the operation of pool halls generally within the state, in violation of article 1, § 28, of the Constitution, which is, “No power of suspending laws in this state shall be exercised, except by the Legislature,” an amendment of previous Constitutions which permitted such suspension under “the authority” of the Legislature.

The act is plainly unconstitutional, in our opinion, for both of these reasons. We largely rest our decision as to the first question upon State v. Swisher, 17 Tex. 441, where an act of the Legislature, in no way dissimilar in its effect from this one, was, upon this ground, held unconstitutional by the first Supreme Court of the state. That decision has never been overturned, and is the law upon the question. The second question is equally well settled, according to our view, by Brown Cracker & Candy Co. v. City of Dallas, 104 Tex. 290, 137 S. W. 342, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 504.

A full opinion in the case will be later filed, the preparation of which has been prevented by the approaching close of the term. This, however, indicates the ground of the decision.

The relator is discharged from custody.

HAWKINS, J.

(dissenting). State v. Swisher, 17 Tex. 441, was decided after the statute there in question had been repealed. The judgment therein merely dismissed the appeal because the record was defective. This court therein declared that it had not exhaustively investigated the question as to the constitutionality of that statute, and contented itself with the assertion of a proposition of law which nobody, anywhere, denies • — that the Legislature cannot delegate its legislative powers.

The question in the case at bar is, Has the Legislature done that in this pool-hall statute? In my opinion the decision of the majority herein is contrary to the settled decisions of this court and of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and to the clear and great weight of authority, decisions and text-books, throughout the United States. San Antonio v. Jones, 28 Tex. 32, decided prior to the adoption of- our present Constitution; Werner v. Galveston, 72 Tex. 27, 7 S. W. 727, 12 S. W. 159; Johnson v. Martin, 75 Tex. 38, 12 S. W. 321; Stanfield v. State, 83 Tex. 321, 18 S. W. 578; Ex parte Francis, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 304, 165 S. W. 147, and authorities therein cited.

I think the statute here in question should be held valid.

When opportunity offers I will state my views more fully. 
      <@5=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     