original construction was completed. Subsequent repair is necessary in the nature of the case; and authority to construct the dock would therefore, in a general sense, seem to imply and include the power to keep it constructed by means of necessary repairs." The provision for charging dockage was connected with the construction as a means of raising the money to pay the cost. A gas company was held to be a manufacturing company within the title of an act.35 In "an act to define the county line of Estill county," it was held that "to define " might be taken in the sense of "to fix," "to establish," and that a provision detaching territory, not in dispute, from Estill county and adding it to another was within the title.36 "Damages" may mean and include "injuries." " An act indicated by its title that it was to make provision for the unlawful levy and collection of public revenue. The act in fact provided a remedy for such unlawful levy and collection. It was held to be expressed by the title, the word "for" being taken in the sense of "in relation to," "with respect to." 38 Many other illustrations will be found in the later sections of this chapter.

§ 129 (93). The subject or object stated generally in the title includes incidents and subsidiary details.- It appears already from what has been said in the preceding sections and the cases which have been cited, that the constitutional provision in question permits an announcement of the subject in general terms in the title of an act; that to facilitate legislation which is intended to be germane to that subject, a very liberal construction is adopted, both of the constitutional requirement and of legislation affected by it, to sustain all laws not within the mischief intended to be remedied. It only remains to illustrate some general principles which the course of decision has established for de

35 Gas & Water Co. v. Downingtown, 193 Pa. St. 255, 44 Atl. 282. 36 Walters v. Richardson, 93 Ky. -374, 20 S. W. 279.

37 Colorado Milling & El. Co. v. Mitchell, 26 Colo. 284, 58 Pac. 28. 38 Western Ranches V. Custer County, 28 Mont. 278.

termining the singleness of legislative subjects; whether the provisions under them are congruous and pertinent; and the consequences of a total or partial departure from the constitutional injunction.

Where the title of a legislative act expresses a general subject or purpose which is single, all matters which are naturally and reasonably connected with it, and all measures which will or may facilitate the accomplishment of the purpose so stated, are properly included in the act, and are germane to its title. The degree of relationship of each

40

provision is not material, if it legitimately tends to the end disclosed in the title. Whatever the scope of the subject, it comprehends not only its constituent parts, but its general incidents, and those which pertain to either of its parts, and everything contributory to the purpose the title expresses or necessarily implies." This principle is recognized in sev eral of the constitutions, which confine an act to a single subject, "and the matters properly connected therewith."

"The title to a bill may be general, and it is not essential that it specify every clause in the proposed statute. It is sufficient if they are all referable and cognate to the subject expressed. When the subject is expressed in general terms, everything which is necessary to make a complete enactment in regard to it, or which results as a complement of the thought contained in the general expression, is embraced in and authorized by it. If the subject-matter is within the scope of the title, the constitutional requirement is met."

Barb. 657; Fishkill v. Fishkill, 22 Barb. 634: In re De Vaucene, 31 How. Pr. 337; State v. N. D. Children's Home Soc., 10 N. D. 493, 88 N. W. 273; State v. Shaw, 22 Ore. 287, 29 Pac. 1028; State v. Steele, 39 Ore. 419, 65 Pac. 515; Seabolt v. Commissioners, 187 Pa. St. 318, 41 Atl. 22; Commonwealth v. Charity Hospital, 198 Pa. St. 270, 47 Atl. 980; State v. Morgan, 2 S. D. 32, 48 N. W. 314; State v. McConnell, 3 Lea, 332; State v. Whitworth, 8 Lea, 594; Cole Mfg. Co. v. Falls, 90 Tenn. 466, 16 S. W. 1045; State v. Yardley, 95 Tenn. 546, 32 S. W. 481, 34 L. R. A. 656; English v. State, 7 Tex. App. 171; Ingles v. Strauss, 91 Va. 209, 21 S. E. 490; Maling v. Crummey, 5 Wash. 222, 31 Pac. 600; State v. Sharpless, 31 Wash. 191, 71 Pac. 137; Shields v. Bennett, 8 W. Va. 83; Yellow River Imp. Co. v. Arnold, 46 Wis. 214; Diana Shoot

ing Club v. Lamereux, 114 Wis. 44,
89 N. W. 880, 90 Am. St. Rep. 833;
Unity v. Burrage, 103 U. S. 447, 26
L. Ed. 405; Ackley School Dist. v.
Hall, 113 U. S. 135, 5 S. C. Rep. 371,
28 L. Ed. 954; Mahomet v. Quack-
enbush, 117 U. S. 508, 6 S. C. Rep.
858, 29 L. Ed. 982; Farmers' L &
T. Co. v. Oregon, etc. R. R. Co., 24
Fed. 407; Skinner v. Garnett Gold
Min. Co., 96 Fed. 735.

40 In re Mayer. 50 N. Y. 504.
41 In re Upson, 89 N. Y. 67.

42 State v. Tibbet, 52 Neb. 228, 71
N. W. 990, 66 Am. St. Rep. 492;
also Carson v. State, 69 Ala. 235;
State v. Tucker, 46 Ind. 355; State
v. Baum, 33 La. Ann. 981; McGrath
v. State, 46 Md. 633; St. Louis v.
Green, 7 Mo. App. 468; Floyd v.
Perrin, 30 S. C. 1; Fahey v. State,
27 Tex. App. 146. The Illinois su-
preme court says:
"Courts always
give a liberal and not a hypercriti-

An act of Arkansas was entitled "An act to provide for the erection of a new state capitol." The act located the capitol on the grounds then occupied by the state penitentiary and authorized the penitentiary commissioners to procure a new site and erect a new penitentiary thereon. It was held that the act embraced but one subject, which was the building of a new capitol on the grounds then occupied by the penitentiary, and that the provisions referred to were incidental to the main purpose.43

130 (97). The subject or object stated generally in the title includes the abolition of things inconsistent.It is germane to the subject of an act to repeal previous acts relating to it, or inconsistent with it." Such repeal is ancillary to the purpose of the new legislation. But the repeal of an act not inconsistent with the new enactment and not related to its subject-matter is not within the title and such repeal is void.45 "The constitutional requirement

cal determination to this restriction. All matters are properly included in the act which are germane to the title. The constitution is obeyed, if all the provisions relate to the one subject indicated in the title, and are parts of it, or incident to it, or reasonably connected with it, or in some reason. able sense auxiliary to the object in view. It is not required that the subject of the bill shall be specifically and exactly expressed in the title, or that the title should be an index of the details of the act. When there is doubt as to whether the subject is clearly expressed in the title, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the act." Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill. 98, 120, 40 N. E. 454, 462, 46 Am. St. Rep. 315, 29 L. R. A. 79.

44 Yellow River Imp. Co. v. Arnold, 46 Wis. 215; State v. County Com'rs, 13 Am. & Eng. Cor. Cas. 203; Gabbert v. Jeffersonville R. R. Co., 11 Ind. 365, 71 Am. Dec. 358; Burke v. Monroe County, 77 Ill. 610; Martin v. Hewitt, 44 Ala. 418; Tolford v. Church, 66 Mich. 431, 33 N. W. 913; State v. Aulman, 76 Iowa, 624, 41 N. W. 379; Muldoon v. Levi, 25 Neb. 457, 41 N. W. 280; Ridge Avenue Ry. Co. v. Philadel phia, 124 Pa. St. 219, 16 Atl. 741; Trackman v. People, 22 Colo. 83, 43 Pac. 662; People v. Backus, 11 App. Div. 147, 42 N. Y. S. 899; Common. wealth v. Moir, 199 Pa. St. 534, 49 Atl. 351, 85 Am. St. Rep. 801.

45 Los Angeles v. Hance, 122 Cal. 77, 54 Pac. 387; State v. Pierce, 51 Kan. 241, 32 Pac. 924; Bryan v. Board of Education, 90 Ky. 322, 13

43 State v. Sloan, 66 Ark. 575, 53 S. W. 276; Howlett v. Cheetham, S. W. 47, 74 Am. St. Rep. 106.

17 Wash. 626, 50 Pac. 522; Kennedy

that every act shall embrace but one subject, which must be expressed in the title, is not violated by an omission to mention in the title of an act relating to a single subject, the repeal of prior enactments inconsistent with the new enactment, if the repealing clause is also confined to repealing statutes relating to that one subject; but when the repealing clause departs from the subject embraced in the title of the act, and purports to repeal a statute relating to a subject not indicated by such title, it comes within the prohibition of the constitution and must be treated as void and of no effect as to the subject not mentioned in the title." 46

47

When one legislative scheme or system is intended to supersede another, the subject of the act which makes the change naturally includes the removal of the existing legislative institution intended to be abolished or reorganized, in whole or in part, and the establishment of the new in its place. One act may divide the state into judicial circuits for judicial purposes, provide for election of judges, fix the time for holding courts; also abolish an existing court, and transfer its unfinished business to the new court.48 So one act properly includes all provisions for effecting the change of a steam railroad running in a tunnel in the street of a city to a surface railway, including the subject of compensation to the owner of the railroad and raising the means to pay it.49 It may happen, when partial substitutions occur, that a residuum of the previous state of things will remain, in a disrupted condition, requiring some fresh legislation not germane to the disrupting act. In such case the whole situation will not be rearranged by one act. The v. Le Moyne, 188 Ill. 255, 58 N. E. 903.

46 Northern Pac. Exp. Co. v. Metschan, 90 Fed. 80, 83, 32 C. C. A. 530.

47 Luehrman Taxing Dist., 2 Lea, 425; Smith v. Commonwealth, 8 Bush, 108; State v. McConnell, 3 Lea, 332; Mullen v. State, 34 Ind.

540; Phillips v. Mayor, etc., 1 Hilt. 483; Supervisors v. Heenan, 2 Minn. (281), 333.

48 State v. Tucker, 46 Ind. 355; State v. Steele, 39 Ore. 419, 65 Pac. 515.

49 People v. Lawrence, 41 N. Y. 137.