Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

unity of the original condition being destroyed, the validity of the new legislation will depend on its own subject being single.50

131. Where the title expresses a general subject, and also details, particulars or sub-titles. It is common for the title of an act to express a general subject, and to accompany it with the specification of details or particulars. Titles are often thus rendered very lengthy and complicated and sometimes appear to express two or more subjects. But if the particulars are or may be incidental or germane to the general title or main purpose, the title is single, and an act embracing the same general subject and particulars is valid. The question cannot be determined by regarding the title alone, but the body of the act must be looked to, and if all the provisions of the act are fairly referable to one general subject and that subject is expressed in the title, the act is valid.52 In such cases the legislature is not

50 Cutlip v. Sheriff, 3 W. Va. 588. 51 Mitchell v. State, 134 Ala. 392, 32 So. 687; Farmers' Independent Ditch Co. v. Agricultural Ditch Co., 22 Colo. 513, 45 Pac. 444, 55 Am. St. Rep. 149; Frost v. Pfeiffer, 26 Colo. 338, 58 Pac. 147; People v. Nelson, 183 Ill. 565, 27 N. E. 217; People v. Brooks, 101 Mich. 98, 59 N. W. 444; Soukup v. Van Dyke, 109 Mich. 679, 67 N. W. 911; In re Ryan, 20 Mont. 64, 50 Pac. 129; Van Horn v. State, 46 Neb. 62, 64 N. W. 365; Cooperrider v. State, 46 Neb. 84, 64 N. W. 372; Railroad Co. v. Crider, 91 Tenn. 489, 19 S. W. 618; In re Fourth Judicial Dist., 4 Wyo. 133, 32 Pac. 850; Baker v. Kaiser, 126 Fed. 317 (C. C. A.). In Hronek v. People, 134 Ill. 139, 144, 24 N. E. 861, 8 L. R. A. 837, it is said: "It is not necessary that the title shall express all of the minor divisions of the general subject to which the

act relates, and it is sufficient if it express the general subject of the act, and all the minor subdivisions germane to the general subject will be held to be included in it. But if the title expresses such minor subdivisions which, without such expression, would be held to be included within the general subject, such expression will not render the title cbnoxious to the constitutional provision."

52 Van Horn v. State, 46 Neb. 62, 64 N. W. 365; Cooperrider v. State, 46 Neb. 84, 64 N. W. 372. In the first case it is said: "The constitutional inhibition is against the bill's containing more than one subject. The title must clearly express the subject; but, provided the bill itself contains but one subject, and this subject is clearly expressed in the title, it matters not although the title, read independ

limited to the particulars or details specified, but may enact any provision germane to the general title, unless the title is so worded as to show a clear intent to confine the act to the particulars mentioned.53 The supreme court of Pennsylvania says: "When a general title, sufficient to cover all the provisions of an act, is followed by specifications of the particular branches of the subject with which it proposes to deal, the scope of the act is not limited nor the validity of the title impaired except as to such portions of the general subject as legislators and others would naturally and reasonably be led by the qualifying words to suppose would not be affected by the act. This is the rule established by all our cases. It is an application of the maxim expressio unius exclusio alterius. The express enumeration of the specific subjects must be affirmatively misleading as to the intent to include others, or the title will not be made invalid by it." 54

§ 132. Effect of title referring to act or other sources of information.-The command of the constitution is that the subject shall be expressed in the title. The supreme court of Texas says: "The constitution declares that the 'subject shall be expressed in the title,' and it cannot be said that this has been done where the title does no more than to furnish a reference to some other writing, document or law from which by search the true purpose of the title may be ascertained. . . . No one would contend that a title as follows, An act in reference to the subject embraced in the bill to which this is the title,' would be sufficient, although such a title attached to a bill would give most easy reference to sources of information from which the subject of the contemplated law might be ascertained. This is so because the

ently of the bill, may seem double. We therefore look to the bill itself to ascertain whether it contains more than one subject, and having ascertained that it contains but one, then we look to the title to see if that subject is clearly ex

pressed therein. If so, the constitutional provision we have been discussing is not violated." p. 72. 53 State v. Atherton, 19 Nev. 332, 10 Pac. 901.

54 In re Sugar Notch Borough, 192 Pa. St. 349, 43 Atl. 985.

constitution requires the subject of an act to be given in the title to it, and a mere reference to something else for the information thus required to be given is not sufficient." 55 An act to authorize a city "to pledge not exceeding one-fourth of its general revenue for the payment and security of judg ments and claims herein specified" was held valid as to its title.56

§ 133. Errors in title, and whether title can be corrected by act or otherwise.- Errors are more likely to occur in amendatory acts than in original acts, and this branch of the subject is treated in a subsequent section.57 Meaningless words and phrases may be rejected from a title,58 and surplusage may generally be disregarded.59 Errors which are manifest from an inspection of the title itself, or from the title taken in connection with facts of which the court will take judicial notice, may be corrected by the court, or the title read as if such corrections had been made. But the title cannot be changed or corrected by reference to the act alone, as that would destroy the efficacy of the constitutional provision.60

55 Gunter v. Texas Land & Mortg. Co., 82 Tex. 496, 17 S. W. 840. The true and actual subject or object must be expressed in the title and not by way of reference to something else to show it. People v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553; Tingue v. Port Chester, 101 N. Y. 294, 303, 4 N. E. 625; People v. Fleming, 7 Colo. 231, 3 Pac. 70; Pennington v. Woolfolk, 79 Ky. 13.

56 Austin v. McCall, 95 Tex. 565, 68 S. W. 791.

57 See post, § 138.

514, 92 N. W. 852. The title of the act in question in these cases was to provide for the allowance of additional attorneys' fees against the defendant in actions to enjoin drainage proceedings or the levy and collection of taxes and assessments. The act provided for such costs against the plaintiff. The court held that it could not read the word "defendant" in the title as "plaintiff" and held the act void. The court, in the first case. says: "As has been seen, errors in

58 Allen v. Hopkins, 62 Kan. 175, titles are not necessarily always 61 Pac. 750.

fatal. When they are obvious from

59 See ante, § 131; Thomas v. State, an inspection of the title, or when 124 Ala. 48, 27 So. 315.

60 Erickson v. Cass County, 11 N. D. 494, 92 N. W. 841; Turnquist v. Cass County Dr. Com'rs, 11 N. D.

an inadvertence is apparent from facts which courts and the public are bound to know, and it is apparent that the error could not have

An act entitled "An act repealing sections 470 and 472, art. IX, of the political code, relating to the appointment of the state land agent and his annual salary," in fact amended both said sections so as to read as follows, etc. The act was held valid. "But we cannot think," says the court, "the misuse of the word 'repeal' in the title must result in overthrowing the whole law, inasmuch as the other words of the title to the bill very clearly point out the sections, chapter, title, code and subject to be affected by the provisions of a bill."

62

§ 134. The subject may be expressed by the description of its parts or subdivisions.-The subject of an act may be expressed generally in the title, or spelled out from details, and occasionally from details which are independent and unconnected except through some general subject as cousins german are related through a common ancestor.

misled either the legislature or the public, and the true intent is certain, the error will be disregarded. But we cannot concede that words or language appearing in titles can be established as inadvertently used, and corrected as such, solely by reference to the contents of the act. Such a doctrine would utterly destroy the safeguards afforded by the requirement that the subject of legislation shall be expressed in the title, and thus make the act, instead of the title, controlling as to the subject of legislation. There are no facts of which we can take judicial notice, neither are there any reasons suggested by an inspection of this title which disclose that the word 'defendants' was inserted in the title inadvertently. The title as it reads clearly expresses a subject of legislation. The subject of legislation embodied in the act is an entirely different one, and is not

[blocks in formation]

63 Attorney-General v. Joy, 55 Mich. 94; State v. Young, 47 Ind. 150; Bitters v. Board, etc., 81 Ind. 125; State v. Board, etc., 26 Ind. 522; State v. Miller, 45 Mo. 495; State v. Bowers, 14 Ind. 195; Lauer v. State, 22 Ind. 461; In re Dept. Pub. Parks, 86 N. Y. 437; People v. Ins. Co., 19 Mich. 392; Garvin v. State, 13 Lea, 162; Neifing v. Town of Pontiac, 56 Ill. 172; People v. Banks, 67 N. Y.

J

According to the authorities the general subject need not appear in the title, if it is clearly disclosed or readily inferred from the details expressed. Two examples of such titles follow: "An act to change and regulate the grand jury system by reducing the number of grand jurors, providing that a grand jury shall be summoned only when ordered by the court, and providing for presentation by information and the procedure thereunder." The act followed the title and was held to embrace but one subject, "the accusation of persons accused of crime," and that that subject was sufficiently expressed in the title.65 "An act regulating the weighing of coal, providing for the safety of employees, protecting persons and property injured, providing for the proper ventilation of mines, prohibiting boys and females from working in mines, conflicting acts repealed, and providing penalties for violation." The real subject of this act was held to be coal mines and to be expressed by the title.66

568; Ramognano v. Crook, 85 Ala. 226, 3 So. 845; Burnside v. Lincoln Co. Court, 86 Ky. 423, 6 S. W. 276; Indianapolis v. Huegele, 115 Ind. 581, 18 N. E. 172.

64 Central Union Tel. Co. v. Fehring, 146 Ind. 189, 45 N. E. 64; Isenhour v. State, 157 Ind. 517, 62 N. E. 40, 87 Am. St. Rep. 228; State v. Sanders, 42 Kan. 228, 21 Pac. 1073; State v. La Vaque, 47 Minn. 106, 49 N. W. 525; Ex parte Livingston, 20 Nev. 282, 21 Pac. 322; Rodenbaugh v. Phila. Traction Co., 190 Pa. St. 358, 42 Atl. 953; Bowden v. Phila. etc. R. R. Co., 196 Pa. St. 562, 46 Atl. 843.

is obeyed by the legislature in the enactment of a law, if its provisions relate to the one subject as indicated by the title, and in some reasonable sense may be considered as auxiliary to such subject. The title of the law in controversy is not a model, and, perhaps, is open to criticism. It at least may be said, however, that it substantially responds to the mandate of the constitution. The form and terms employed in framing the title possibly operate to give expression, by parts, to the general subject to which the proposed legislation relates. When these parts, as ex

65 In re Boulter, 5 Wyo. 329, 40 pressed in the title, are taken and Pac. 520.

66 Maule Coal Co. v. Parthenheimer, 155 Ind. 100, 55 N. E. 751. The court says: "It may be asserted that the constitutional restriction

considered collectively, they constitute such a title as serves fairly to point out or disclose the general subject-matter, coal mines, over which the legislature proposes to

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »