sidered in construing a constitutional provision. Coombs v. St., 38 Cr. App., 648. The constitution must be so construed so as to make every clause, word, etc., significant. Cordova v. St., 6 Cr. App., 207. The whole instrument must be given effect and each section receive such a construction as will permit them to stand. Lastro v. St., 3 Cr. App., 363. For a discussion of the difference of state and U. S. constitutions see ex parte Brown, 38 Cr. App., 295; Holley v. St., 14 Cr. App., 505. Inability of a state to comply with a constitution does not justify its violation. Cline v. St., 36 Cr. App., 320; ex parte Coombs, 38 Cr. App., 648. The constitution is not to receive a technical construction, but the intent of the people in adopting it must be ascertained. Ex parte Coombs, 38 Cr. App., 648; Holley v. St., 14 Cr. App., 505; Hunt v. St., 7 Cr. App., 213; Cordova v. St., 6 Cr. App., 207. In determining whether an act violates a state constitution the enquiry to be made is to the limitations imposed upon the legislature by the constitution. Ex parte Mabry, 4 Cr. App., 93. Laws must be construed to harmonize with the constitution if it can reasonably be done. Ex parte Murphy, 27 Cr. App., 492. ARTICLE II. THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT. SECTION I. The powers of the government of the State of Texas shall be divided into three distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a separate body of magistracy, to-wit: Those which are legislative to one, those which are executive to another, and those which are judicial to another; and no person or collection of persons, being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly attached to either of the others, except in the instances herein expressly permitted. This section places the executive department beyond the control of the judiciary. Kaufman County v. McGaughey, 21 S. W. R., 261. When the executive department exercises power not attached to its department and from which exercise harm will result, the judiciary will restrain. Id. This section prohibits the courts from putting in a law something that has been omitted which the court believes ought to be embraced. Chase v. Swayne, 88 T., 225, 30 S. W. R., 1049. The good or bad policy of a law are legislative questions over which courts have no jurisdiction. Ins. Co. v. Chowing, 86 T., 654, 26 S. W. R., 982. Courts have no power to reverse or amend a statute passed by the legislature. Williams v. Taylor, 83 T., 673, 19 S. W. R., 156. A decision of one department is binding on the other when that discretion has been placed in that branch of government. March v. St., 44 T., 64. There can be no implied exemption from taxation in favor of lawyers on the ground that they are part of the judiciary and cannot be controlled by the legislature. Ex parte Williams, 31 Cr. App., 262, 20 S. W. R., 580. Where a particular question is addressed to the discretion of one department an interference of any other department with the view to substitute its discretion and judgment will not be permitted by this section. Martin v. St., 21 Cr. App., 2. A court cannot decide whether or not the granting of a pardon is against public policy. Id. |