"3. It contains retrospective provisions impairing the obligation of contracts, in violation of section 43, art. 4, of the Constitution.

"4. The entire act is incomplete, inoperative, and incapable of enforcement."

R. A. & W. E. Hawley, for relator.

A. A. Ellis and Morse & Locke, for respondent.

GRANT, J. (after stating the facts). 1. There is nothing in the body of this act that is not germane to the general object expressed in the title. Its title gave notice that it was an original act so far as the county of Ionia was concerned, and that any constitutional provision in regard to the construction of drains was admissible under it in the body of the bill. The purpose of this constitutional provision and its application have been so often discussed by this court that we deem it unimportant to attempt to add thereto. Its purpose is well stated in People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 494. See, also, Cooley on Constitutional Limitations (6th Ed.), p. 172; Kurtz v. People, 33 Mich. 279; People v. Worden Grocer Co., 118 Mich. 604; Swartwout v. Railroad Co., 24 Mich. 398. The title also gave notice that the general drain law might be entirely superseded, changed, or amended, or repealed so far as it affected the county of Ionia. Counsel criticise the act severely on account of the alleged difficulties to be encountered in its enforcement. These are matters for the legislature, and not for the courts.

2. Section 25, art 4, of the Constitution, provides that "no law shall be revised, altered or amended by reference to its title only; but the act revised or the section or sections of the act altered or amended shall be re-enacted and published at length." This act contemplates keeping in force the machinery of the general law, for in section 2 it is provided: "In the county of Ionia, before any action can be taken by the drain commissioner under the general law, there shall be filed with him," etc. There is no attempt in this to revise, alter, or amend the general law.

It modifies or amends certain provisions of the general law only so far as it affects the county of Ionia, and then supplements it with some additional requirements. This case is controlled by People v. Shuler, 136 Mich. 161.

3. It does not impair the obligations of any contract. It carefully provides that it shall not apply to any case where a contract for the construction of a drain or any part thereof has been let. The commissioner has no such contractual relations under the law, or vested rights, that his duty may not at any time be suspended, restricted, or enlarged. Neither have parties interested in the construction of drains such rights. Scribner v. City of Grand Rapids, 119 Mich. 188; Wheeler v. Board of Control of State Public School, 137 Mich. 291; Board of Sup'rs of Saginaw Co. v. Hubinger, 137 Mich. 72. Legislation similar to this is not new in this State. Act No. 91, Pub. Acts 1901; Act No. 237, Pub. Acts 1903; Act No. 21, Pub. Acts 1905.

4. From what has already been said it is apparent that the fourth objection is not maintainable. There is no provision which is not capable of enforcement.' The policy of the law is for the legislature, and not for the courts. So long as the law is capable of enforcement it must be sustained, no matter how strict the requirements are or what difficulty may be encountered in enforcing them. The number of the petitions and the provisions thereof required in the initiatory proceedings, and the strictness with which they are limited to the precise route set forth in the petition, and the other provisions of the act, are matters which the Constitution has vested in the legislature, and cannot be condemned by the courts because difficult of enforcement.

The order of the circuit court is affirmed.

MCALVAY, BLAIR, MONTGOMERY, and HOOKER, JJ., concurred.

'See Albert v. Gibson, post, 698.-REPORTER.

1. STATUTES-CONSTRUCTION-DUTY OF COURTS.
Courts are bound to endeavor, by every rule of construction, to
ascertain the meaning of, and to give full force and effect to,
every enactment of the legislature not obnoxious to constitu-
tional prohibitions.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-STATUTES - CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY.

Statutes must be so construed as to render them constitutional, if such construction is reasonably possible.

8. DRAINS-STATUTE-IMPOSSIBILITY OF ENFORCEMENT.

The provision of the general drain law, that an application for the establishment of a drain shall be signed by not less than ten freeholders, five or more of whom shall be owners of land "liable" to an assessment for benefits in the construction of such drain, means that at least five of the signers must be persons who may properly be assessed for benefits, and, as so construed, is not subject to the objection of being impossible of enforcement.1

4. SAME.

Act No. 495, Local Acts 1903, relative to the establishment of drains in Saginaw county, which provides that, before the drain commissioner shall take any action, there shall be filed with him an application, signed by not less than one-third of the freeholders "of the land to be drained thereby and to be assessed therefor," is inoperative because of impossibility of enforcement, there being no means by which it can be ascertained beforehand what lands are to be drained or liable to assessment.

5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - LEGISLATIVE POWERS-Delegation to SUPERVISORS.

Under section 38 of article 4 of the Constitution, the legislature may, as it did in Act No. 237, Pub. Acts 1903, delegate to the board of supervisors of a county power to fix and determine conditions in contracts for the construction or improvement of drains additional to those prescribed by the statute.

As to procedure for establishment of drains and sewers, see note to State, ex rel. Utick, v. Polk County Com'rs (Minn.), 60 L. R. A.

6. SAME STATUTES-CONSTRUCTION-POLICY OF THE LAW. Whether the effect of legislation authorized by the Constitution is good or bad is not for the courts to determine but for the legislature alone.

Certiorari to Saginaw; Beach, J. Submitted September 21, 1905. (Calendar No. 21,158.) Decided November 21, 1905.

Mandamus by Charles Albert and others to compel Orin E. Gibson, county drain commissioner, to act upon a petition for the establishing of a certain drain. From an order granting the writ, respondent brings certiorari. Reversed.

James H. Davitt, for relators.

Frank A. Rockwith, Prosecuting Attorney (G. W. Davis, of counsel), for respondent.

BLAIR, J. Relators filed a petition in the circuit court for the county of Saginaw, asking that an order be granted requiring respondent, the county drain commissioner of Saginaw county, to show cause why a peremptory mandamus should not issue to compel him to take action upon an application presented to him by relators, as freeholders of the townships of Albee and Maple Grove in said county, for the construction of a public drain. Relators' application was in due form under the general drain law, but respondent refused to entertain it or act upon it, for the

reasons:

1. That not one-third of the freeholders of the lands to be drained thereby and to be assessed therefor had signed said application, as required by Act No. 495 of the Local Acts of 1903.

2. Because a majority of the members of the township boards of each of the townships of Albee and Maple Grove had not approved said application in writing, as required by a resolution passed by the board of supervisors of Saginaw county, under the authority of Act No. 91 of the Public Acts of 1901, as amended by Act No. 237 of the Public Acts of 1903.

Respondent filed his answer to the petition of relators, admitting that his refusal to entertain the application for a drain was for the reasons above set forth, and, the question of law raised by the pleadings having been submitted to the court, he granted the writ of mandamus, as prayed for; filing the following opinion as his reasons therefor:

"I am satisfied that the board of supervisors have no power or authority to make laws. That is left entirely with the legislature of the State, and the resolution that was passed by the board, in my opinion, is void and of no effect, because the act of the legislature upon which it rests is unconstitutional.

'Section 1 of article 4 of the Constitution provides that the legislative power is vested in a senate and house of representatives; and the act that attempts to confer upon the supervisors of Saginaw county power to amend the drain laws of this State undertakes to confer upon the board legislative power, which only the legislature itself possesses and can lawfully exercise, and it is therefore void.

"Act No. 495 of the Local Acts of 1903, requiring that one-third of the freeholders of the lands to be drained and to be assessed for benefits shall sign the petition before it can be acted upon by the drain commissioner, makes no provision for ascertaining or determining what lands are to be drained or what are to be assessed; and, as it cannot be carried into effect for lack of adequate provision in this respect, it is void. Courts are not at liberty to supply defects in legislation, and to do so would be to usurp the power of the legislature. The necessary provision to carry such a law into effect must be found in the law itself, and an attempt by the court to devise rules to help out such a statute would be neither more nor less than an attempt to legislate.

"Under the general drain law, the drain commissioner fixes the assessment district and reviews the assessments in the first instance, and on such review may change the district as originally fixed by him (2 Comp. Laws, §§ 4344, 4340, as amended by Act No. 272, Pub. Acts 1899); and the district as fixed by him may be changed by a board of review. A separate board of review is appointed for each drain, where an appeal is taken from the