It has been said that inferior courts will not pass upon these questions ; Ortman v. Greenman, 4 Mich. 291; but see, contra, Cooley, Const. Lim. 198, n.; Mayberry v. Kelly, 1 Kan. 116. The contrary rule would seem now to be well settled.
Courts will not draw into consideration constitutional questions collaterally, or un less the consideration is necessary to the determination of the very point in contro versy; Hoover v. Wood, 9 Ind. 287 ; Smith v. Speed, 50 Ala. 277 ; Clarke v. City of Rochester, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 446 ; Parker v. State, 5 Tex. App. 579 ; State v: Rich, 20 Mo. 393; Ireland v. Turnpike Co., 19 Ohio St. 373. If a statute is valid on its face, the court will not look into evidence aliunde to determine whether it violates the con stitution ; Rankin v. Colgan, 92 Cal. 605, 28 Pac. 673 ; but where it is plainly invalid for other reasons, courts will not pass on its constitutionality ; State v. Price, 8 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 25, 4 0. C. D. 296; Smith v. Speed, 50 Ala. 276 ; Weimer v. Bunbury, 30 Mich. 201; White v. Scott, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 56. The question whether a legislative act is constitutional never comes before a court for decision as an abstract question, but can only be considered when it arises in a suit inter partes. "The serious duty of con demning state legislation as constitutional and void cannot be thrown upon this court, except at the suit of parties directly and certainly effected thereby" ; Chadwick v. Kelly, 187 U. S. 540, 23 Sup. Ct. 175, 47 L. Ed. 293; Manley v. Park, 187 U. S. 547, 23 Sup. Ct. 208, 47 L. Ed. 296. As to the effect of a decision in such a case upon the act it self, see infra.
To justify a court in declaring an act un constitutional, the case must be so clear that no reasonable doubt can be said to exist ; Blair v. Ridgely, 41 Mo. 63, 97 Am. Dec. 248; Smithee v. Garth, 33 Ark. 17 ; Peti tion of Wellington, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 95, 26 Am. Dec. 631; New York & 0. M. R. Co. v. Van Horn, 57 N. Y. 473 ; Kerrigan v. Force, 68 N. Y. 381; Gormley v. Taylor, 44 Ga. 76; State v. R. Co., 48 Mo. 468; see Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U. S. 662, 9 Sup. Ct. 651, 32 L. Ed. 1060 ;' Rich v. Flanders, 39 N. H. 304; Chicago, D. .& V. R. R. Co. v.
Smith, 62 Ill. 268; 14 Am. Rep. 99; and every intendment will be made in favor of the constitutionality of the law ; People v. Rucker, 5 Colo. 455. "The principle is uni versal, that legislation, whether by congress or by a state, must be taken to be' valid, unless the contrary is made clearly to ap pear ;" Reid v. Colorado, • 187 U. S. 137, 23 Sup. Ct. 92, 47 L. Ed. 108 ; and in Min singer v. Rau, 236 Pa. 327, '84 Atl. 902, it was said that when an act has been the re sult of deliberate thought of a commission of prominent citizens, and has been passed upon by two legislatures before final ap proval by the governor, it will not be set aside as unconstitutional "unless the alleged breaches of the fundamental law are so glaring that there is no escape." The courts cannot pronounce void an act within the general scope of legislative pow ers, merely because contrary to natural justice; Commissioners of Northumberland County v. Chapman, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 74 ; Web er v. Reinhard, 73 Pa. 370, 13 Am. Rep. 747 ; State v. Kruttschnitt, 4 Nev. 178 ; Hills v. Chicago, 60 Ill. 86; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. Ed. 77; Martin v. Dix, 52 Miss. 53, 24 Am. Rep. 661; Maxwell v. Board, 119 Ind. 20, 23, 19 N. E. 617, 21 N. E. 453 ; nor because it violates fundamental prin ciples of republican government, unless these principles are protected by the constitution; License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 469, 18 L. Ed. 497; Perry v. Keene, 56 N. H. 514 ; nor because it is supposed to .confiict with the of the constitution ; People v. Fisher, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 220; Walker v. City of Cincinnati, 21 Ohio St. 14, 8 Am. Rep. 24 ; Cooley, Const. Lim. (6th ed.) 204. Any legislative act which does not encroach upon the powers vested in the other depart ments of the government must be enforced by the courts ; Chicago, D. & V. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 62 Ill. 268, 14 Am. • Rep. 99 ; Fletch er v. Peck, 6 Cra. (U. S.) 128, 3 L. Ed. 162. The courts of one state should not declare unconstitutional and void a statute of an other state, whose courts had held it con stitutional; American Print Works v. Law rence, 23 N. J. L. 596, 57 Am. Dec. 420.