The only question presented by the record in this case is the constitutionality of the act of 1856, to provide for the location of the county seat of Sutter county.

The act authorizes the question to be submitted to the voters of the county, and provides that any place, receiving a majority of all the votes cast, should be declared the county seat.

The appellant contends that under the provisions of the tenth section of article six of the Constitution, which directs that “ the times and places of holding the terms of the Supreme Court, and the general and special terms of the District Courts, within the several districts, shall be provided for by law ;” th e Legislature must directly select the places of holding the terms of the District Courts, and the authority to do so cannot be delegated.

Admitting this construction to be correct, it does not necessarily follow that the right to locate county seats may not be conferred upon the people of the different counties; the Constitution does not require the terms of the Districts Courts to be held at the county seats, and we think' it would be competent for the Legislature to fix upon other places for that purpose.

But we are not able to perceive any conflict between the Constitution and the apt in question; we think that the places of holding Courts are “provided for by law.” When it is enacted that the terms shall be held at the county seats of the different counties, providing for a place does not necessarily include its direct selection; if the mode of selection is prescribed by law, then the place is provided for. By the Constitution the Legislature is required.to provide for many objects which cannot be effected by the direct action of the Legislature, and while the maxim delegatus non potest delegare, is undoubtedly true, the extent of its application to legislative bodies must depend upon the nature and design of the legislation and the means necessary to accomplish the design, as well as a knowledge of the powers *383 of the Legislature and the acts which may be done in the exercise of those powers. A question similar to the one under .consideration arose in the case of the People v. Reynolds, 5 Gil., 1 . The Court said:

The reasoning of this opinion is, we think, conclusive on the questions here presented. The case of Dickey v. Hurlburt, relied on by appellant, is not in point, the question in that case was, whether a judicial officer could exercise functions properly belonging to another department of the government.

Judgment affirmed.