have a practical and liberal construction, for it is manifest that a law may embrace but one subject, and yet include many provisions and details which would be inconvenient and unnecessary to refer to in the title. It is sufficient if the title fairly and reasonably expresses the subject, or is sufficiently broad and comprehensive to include the several provisions relating to, or connected with, the subject. And whatever provisions of the law are germane to the title of the act are proper to be incorporated into the body thereof." 55

§ 119 (86). Requirement as to form or manner of expressing subject in title. The direction is, generally, that the subject be "expressed in the title." It is varied in some instances. In Nevada it is to be briefly expressed; in several it is to be clearly expressed. These qualifying words do not add any new element; they merely assist in the interpretation. A brief statement of the subject will suffice under the provision as it is generally worded; and the decisions in Nevada afford no ground for inferring that a prolix title,

N. W. 1083; State v. County Com'rs, 83 Minn. 65, 85 N. W. 830; State v. Mead, 71 Mo. 266; State v. Burgdoer fer, 107 Mo. 1, 17 S. W. 646; State v. Bronson, 115 Mo. 271, 21 S. W. 1125; State v. Slover, 134 Mo. 10, 31 S. W. 1054, 34 S. W. 1102; De Both v. Rich Hill Coal & Min. Co., 141 Mo. 497, 42 S. W. 1081; State v. Beck, 25 Nev. 68, 56 Pac. 1008; Northern Counties Trust v. Sears, 30 Ore. 388, 41 Pac. 931, 35 L. R. A. 188; Nottage v. Portland, 35 Ore. 539, 58 Pac. 883, 76 Am. St. Rep. 513; Commonwealth v. Depuy, 148 Pa. St. 201, 23 Atl. 896; Hays v. Cumberland County, 186 Pa. St. 109, 40 Atl. 282; Goebeler v. Wilhelm, 17 Pa. Supr. 432; Frazier v. Railway Co., 88 Tenn. 138, 12 S. W. 537; State v. Yardley, 95 Tenn. 546,

32 S. W. 481, 34 L. R. A. 656; Railroad Co. v. Crider, 91 Tenn. 489, 19 S. W. 618; Ryan v. Terminal Co., 102 Tenn. 111, 50 S. W. 744, 45 L. R. A. 303; State v. Brown, 103 Tenu. 449, 53 S. W. 727; Peterson v. State, 104 Tenn. 127, 56 S. W. 834; Clark v. Findley, 93 Tex. 171, 54 S. W. 1343; Ingles v. Strauss, 91 Va. 207, 21 S. E. 490; Trehy v. Marye, 100 Va. 40, 40 S. E. 126; Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. Co., 184 U. S. 368, 22 S. C. Rep. 410, 46 L. Ed. 592; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Oswego, 59 Fed. 58, 7 C. C. A. 669, 19 U. S. App. 321; Tabor v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 62 Fed. Rep. 383, 10 C. C. A. 429, 27 U. S. App. 111.

55 Putnam v. St. Paul, 75 Minn. 514, 78 N. W. 90.

56 Shivers v. Newton, 45 N. J. L. 469.

otherwise unobjectionable, would vitiate an act.57 The requirement that it be clearly expressed imports no more than that it be expressed; though it may add some emphasis.58 If the title does not clearly express the subject, but is ambiguous and suggestive of doubt, still it is believed the doubt, if possible, would be resolved in favor of the validity of the act.59 The title of an act was formerly no part of it, and was not much resorted to in the exposition of the act; but inder this constitutional clause it is an indispensable part of every act.60

§ 120 (87). The subject in an act can be no broader than the statement of it in the title. It is required not only that an act shall contain but one subject, but that that subject be expressed in the title. The title, thus made a part of each act, must agree with it by expressing its subject; the title will fix bounds to the purview, for it cannot exceed the title-subject, nor be contrary to it.61 An act will not be so construed as to extend its operation beyond the purpose expressed in the title. It is not enough that the act em

62

57 State v. Ah Sam, 15 Nev. 27. 58 Dorsey's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 192; Commonwealth v. Martin, 107 Pa. St. 185; W. Phila. R. R. Co. v. Union R. R. Co., 9 Phila. 495; Carr v. Thomas, 18 Fla. 736; Evans v. Memphis, etc. R. R. Co., 56 Ala. 246, 28 Am. Rep. 771; Board of Com'rs v. Baker, 80 Ind. 374; Township of Union v. Rader, 39 N. J. L. 509.

59 Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 2 S. C. Rep. 391, 27 L. Ed. 431; State v. Board, etc., 26 Ind. 522; People v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553.

60 McGrath v. State, 46 Md. 633; State v. Town of Union, 33 N. J. L. 350; Indiana Central Ry. Co. v. Potts, 7 Ind. 681; Yeager v. Weaver, 64 Pa. St. 427; Stein v. Leeper, 78 Ala. 517.

Ind. 374; Matter of Tappen, 36 How. Pr. 390; State v. Garrett, 29 La. Ann. 637; Coutieri v. Mayor, etc., 44 N. J. L. 58; Mississippi, etc. Boom Co. v. Prince, 10 Am. & Eng. Cor. Cas. 391, 34 Minn. 71; Ex parte Moore, 62 Ala. 471; Matter of Blodgett, 89 N. Y. 392; Crabb v. State, 88 Ga. 584, 15 S. E. 455; Land Title Warranty & Safe Dep. Co. v. Tanner, 99 Ga. 470, 27 S. E. 727; Harris v. State, 110 Ga. 887, 36 S. E. 232; Dixon v. Poe, 159 Ind. 492, 65 N. E. 518; State v. Pierson, 41 La. Ann. 90, 10 So. 400; Jones v. Morristown, 66 N. J. L. 488, 49 Atl. 440; Lacey v. Palmer, 93 Va. 159, 24 S. E. 930. 57 Am. St. Rep. 795.

62 Bates v. Nelson, 49 Mich. 459, 13 N. W. 817; Elliott v. State, 91

61 Board of Com'rs v. Baker, 80 Ga. 694, 17 S. E. 1004; Allen v. Ber

64

braces but a single subject or object, and that all its parts are germane; the title must express that subject, and comprehensively enough to include all the provisions in the body of the act.63 The unity and compass of the subject must, therefore, always be considered with reference to both title and purview. The unity must be sought, too, in the ultimate end which the act proposes to accomplish, rather than in the details leading to that end. The particular effect of the purview exceeding the title, or of the latter misrepresenting the purview, will be discussed in another section.65 The title cannot be enlarged by construction when too narrow to cover all the provisions in the enacting part, nor can the purview be contracted by construction to fit the title; 6 but the title, if not delusively general, may be sufficient though more extensive than the purview.67

66

§ 121 (SS). Requisites of title generally-It need not index the details of the act. The title must state the subject of the act for the purpose of information to members of the legislature and public while the bill is going through the forms of enactment. It is not required that

219.

nards Tp., 57 N. J. L. 303, 31 Atl. per, 14 Ind. 295; Supervisors v. People, 25 Ill. 181; Succession of Lanzetti, 9 La. Ann. 329; post, §§ 121, 129. 65 See post, § 143 et seq.

63 Mewherter v. Price, 11 Ind. 201; Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 269; Dorsey's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 192; Ross v. Davis, 97 Ind.79; Knoxville v. Lewis, 12 Lea, 180; Stiefel v. Md. Inst. for Blind, 61 Md. 144; Town of Fishkill v. Fishkill, etc. P. R. Co., 22 Barb. 634; Grover v. Trustees, etc., 45 N. J. L. 399; Shivers v. Newton, 45 N. J. L. 469; Cooley's Const. L. 179; Greaton v. Griffin, 4 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 310.

64 State v. Town of Union, 33 N. J. L. 350; State v. County Judge, 2 Iowa, 280; City of St. Louis v. Tiefel, 42 Mo. 578; Morford v. Unger, 8 Iowa, 82; Whiting v. Mt. Pleasant, 11 Iowa, 482; Clinton v. Dra

4

66 Howland Coal & Iron Works v. Brown, 13 Bush, 681; In re Paul, 94 N. Y. 497; Matter of Sackett, etc. Sts., 74 N. Y. 95; State v. Clinton, 27 La. Ann. 40; post, § 127.

67 Yeager v. Weaver, 64 Pa. St. 427; In re De Vaucene, 31 How. Pr. 337; Luther v. Saylor, 8 Mo. App. 424; Johnson v. People, 83 Ill. 431; Coutieri v. New Brunswick, 44 N. J. L. 58; Garvin v. State, 13 Lea, 162; post, § 123 et seq.

68 Grover v. Trustees, etc., 45 N. J. L. 399; McGrath v. State, 46 Md. 633; People v. Lawrence, 36 Barb. 185; Dorsey's Appeal, 72 Pa. St.

the title should be exact and precise.69 It is sufficient if the language used in the title, on a fair construction, indicates the purpose of the legislature to legislate according to the constitutional provision; so that making every reasonable intendment in favor of the act, it may be said that the subject or object of the law is expressed in the title.70 As said by the supreme court of Illinois, the constitution does not require that "the subject of the bill shall be specifically and exactly expressed in the title; hence we conclude that any expression in the title which calls attention to the subject of the bill, although in general terms, is all that is required." It may be general," but must be specific enough to answer reasonably the purpose for which the subject is required to be expressed in the title.73

71

192; Indiana Cent. Ry. Co. v. Potts, 7 Ind. 681; Shields v. Bennett, 8 W. Va. 83; People v. McCallum, 1 Neb. 182; State v. County Judge, 2 Iowa, 282; Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mayor, etc.. 8 N. Y. 252; Mississippi, etc. Boom Co. v. Prince, 10 Am. & Eng. Cor. Cas. 392, 34 Minn. 71; Harris v. People, 59 N. Y. 602; Parkinson v. State, 14 Md. 184, 74 Am. Dec. 522; Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 269; Brewster v. Syracuse, 19 N. Y. 116; National Bank v. Southern, etc. Co., 55 Ga. 36; Town of Fishkill v. Fishkill, etc. P. R. Co., 22 Barb. 634; Hargrave v. Weber, 66 Mich. 59; Wolf v. Taylor, 98 Ala. 254, 13 So. 688; Mobile Trans. Co. v. Mobile, 128 Ala. 335, 30 So. 645, 86 Am. St. Rep. 143; Ex parte Liddell, 93 Cal. 633, 29 Pac. 251; State v. Tibbet, 52 Neb. 228, 71 N. W. 990, 66 Am. St. Rep. 492.

69 Grover v. Trustees, etc., 45 N. J. L. 399; Daubman v. Smith, 47 N. J. L. 200; In re Mayer, 50 N. Y. 506; People v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 558; Louisiana State Lottery Co. v.

Richoux, 23 La. Ann. 745; Johnson v. People, 83 Ill. 431.

70 Grover v. Trustees, etc., 45 N. J. L. 399; State Line, etc. R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 77 Pa. St. 429; Atkinson v. Duffy, 16 Minn. 49.

71 Johnson v. People, 83 Ill. 436; Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill. 98, 120, 40 N. E. 454, 462, 46 Am. St. Rep. 315, 29 L. R. A. 79.

72 State v. Rogers, 107 Ala. 444, 19 So. 909; Catron v. County Com'rs, 18 Colo. 553, 33 Pac. 513; Donnersberger v. Prendergast, 128 Ill. 229, 21 N. E. 1; Rex Lumber Co. v. Reed, 107 Iowa, 111, 77 N. W. 572; McKeon v. Sumner Bldg. & Supply Co., 51 La. Ann. 1961, 26 So. 430; State v. Am. Sugar Ref. Co., 106 La. 553, 31 So. 181; Crookston v. County Com'rs, 79 Minn. 283, 82 N. W. 586, 79 Am. St. Rep. 453; State v. Anaconda Copper Min. Co., 23 Mont. 498, 59 Pac. 854; Newark v. Orange, 55 N. J. L. 514, 26 Atl. 799; Powell v. Supervisors, 88 Va. 707, 14 S. E. 543. 78 Shivers v. Newton, 45 N. J. L. 469; State v. Garrett, 29 La. Ann..

When the subject is stated in the title the constitution is so far complied with that no criticism of the mode of statement will affect the validity of the act. The statute is valid in such a case; the degree of particularity in expressing the subject in the title is left to the discretion of the legislature. No particular form has been prescribed in the constitution for expressing the subject or purpose of a statute in its title.76 It need not index the details of the act, nor give a synopsis of the means by which the object of the statute is to be effectuated by the provisions in the body of the act."