proved: "An act to amend section 1950 of the code of Tennessee;" "An act to amend section 58, chapter 45 of the code of West Virginia;" "An act to amend and reenact section 910 of the Revised Statutes of 1870." In the case last referred to the court says: "The manifest and sole object of the act being to amend and re-enact section 910 of the Revised Statutes, it is difficult to conceive of a more efficient mode of expressing that intention than the language used in the title of the act now under consideration. To require a more extended expression of the object intended would certainly not add clearness to the title, but would, on the contrary, incumber it, and destroy the unity of the expression which is contemplated by the requirement of the constitution on this subject."

3 Heath v. Johnson, 36 W. Va. 782, 15 S. E. 980.

4 State v. Brown, 41 La. Ann. 771, 6 So. 638.

So a section of an act may be amended under a title referring to the number given the section in a private but authorized compilation of statutes." Thus, one William Lair Hill was authorized to make such a compilation of the laws Masslich, 108 Fed. 743, 47 C. C. A. 2 Hardaway v. Lilly (Tenn.), 48 657; State v. Olsen, 58 Minn. 1, 59 S. W. 712. N. W. 634; Eaton v. Guaranty Co., 11 N. D. 79, 88 N. W. 1029; Hearn v. Louttit, 42 Ore. 572, 72 Pac. 132; Utley v. Cavender, 31 S. C. 282, 9 S. E. 957; Hardaway v. Lilly (Tenn.), 48 S. W. 712; Nichols v. State, 32 Tex. Crim. Rep. 391, 23 S. W. 680; English & Scottish Am. Mort. Co. v. Hardy, 93 Tex. 289, 55 S. W. 169; Tabor v. State, 34 Tex. Crim. Rep. 631, 31 S. W. 662, 53 Am. St. Rep. 726; Heath v. Johnson, 36 W. Va. 782, 15 S. E. 980; McCalla v. Bane, 45 Fed. 828; In re Moore, 81 Fed. 356; Steele Co. v. Erskine, 98 Fed. 215, 39 C. C. A. 173. But a title which does not designate any act, code or revision is incomplete. Gunter v. Texas Land & Mortg. Co., 82 Tex. 496, 17 S. W. 840.

5 Otis v. People, 196 Ill. 542, 63 N. E. 1053; Hall v. Leland, 64 Minn. 71, 66 N. W. 202; Ex parte Howe. 26 Ore. 181, 37 Pa. 536; Hearn v. Louttit, 42 Ore. 572, 72 Pac. 132. In the first case cited the court says: "But, while the General Statutes of 1878 are a mere compilation, yet by the mass of people, as well as the legislature, they have been generally looked upon and treated as original enactments. Our session laws are full of amendatory statutes whose titles refer to them, and never once allude to the original acts. Public policy and necessity, if nothing else, require us to hold

of Oregon. He did so, and the printed volume was entitled on the back, "Hill's Annotated Laws of Oregon." An act was entitled, "An act to amend section 2465 of Hill's Annotated Laws of Oregon." This section was section 8 of "An act in relation to county treasurers." The above title of the amendatory act was held sufficient. In the same state there existed a code of civil procedure and a code of criminal procedure, both of which were incorporated with other laws in Hill's compilation, in which the sections were numbered consecutively from the beginning to the end of the compilation. An act was passed entitled "An act to amend section 711 of the Codes and General Laws of Oregon." There was such a section in each of the codes as well. as in Hill's compilation, but there was no code, compilation or revision entitled "The Codes and General Laws of Oregon." The amendment was germane to section 711 of Hill's compilation, but the court held the act void because there was no collection or compilation of statutes entitled as in the act. The court, while affirming the rule stated at the beginning of this section, adds: "But we do not feel justified in extending the rule, and holding that any reference from which it may be conjectured or argued that a certain section of a certain law or compilation was intended will answer."7

In Indiana and New York such titles are held to be insufficient. Thus, "An act supplementary to chapter 489 of the laws of 1868" was held to express no subject whatever. So of an act entitled "An act to amend section 640 of the Revised Statutes of 1881." The supreme court of Washington territory ruled the same way,10 but the supreme court

that the title to an act purporting to amend any part of such compilation is sufficient, as it would be, if, instead of being a compilation, it was original legislation."

8 New York v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 143 N. Y. 1, 37 N. E. 494. To same effect: People v. Hills, 35 N. Y. 449.

9 O'Mara v. Wabash R. R. Co., 150

6 Ex parte Howe, 26 Ore. 181, 37 Ind. 648, 50 N. E. 821. Also Boring Pac. 536.

7 Hearn v. Louttit, 42 Ore. 572, 72 Pac. 132.

v. State, 141 Ind. 610, 41 N. E. 270.

10 Harland v. Territory, 3 Wash. Ter. 131, 13 Pac. 453; Rumsey v.

of the state at first held otherwise," though still applying the old rule to territorial acts,12 but in a late case has reverted to the earlier doctrine. Of course all difficulty is avoided if the title of the amendatory act recites the title of the chapter to which the section belongs, or otherwise indicates its subject-matter." The title of a repealing statute is sufficient which designates the sections only.15

§ 142. Title of amendatory acts-Illustrations and miscellaneous cases.- An act entitled to amend the charter of a named municipal corporation may contain a provision changing the territorial boundary of the municipality.16 Under such a title provisions have sometimes been enacted curing defects in and validating municipal proceedings taken of course subsequent to the enactment of the original charter. Such provisions are germane to the object of the incorporation, but not to the function or act of creating a corporation, prescribing and distributing its powers, and regulating their exercise. Such curative proTerritory, 3 Wash. Ter. 332, 21 Pac. of which it treats, and an amending 152. act treats of the theme covered by 11 Marston v. Humes, 3 Wash. 267, the act sought to be amended. We 28 Pac. 520.

12 State v. Halbert, 14 Wash. 306, 44 Pac. 538; Poncin v. Furth, 15 Wash. 201, 46 Pac. 241.

13 State v. Superior Court, 28 Wash. 317, 68 Pac. 957, 92 Am. St. Rep. 831. The court says in this case: "What is the significance of the word 'subject' in this connection? Webster defines it as 'that of which anything is affirmed or predicated; the theme of a proposition or discourse; that which is spoken of.' To say that mere reference to a numbered section embodies the idea of a theme, proposition or discourse, it seems to us, is not sustained by the ordinary understanding of those terms. The theme of a legislative act is that

therefore see no escape from the conclusion that the title of an amending act must contain some words which indicate the theme or proposition of which the act sought to be amended treats."

14 Heller v. People, 2 Colo. App. 459, 31 Pac. 773; In re White, 33 Neb. 812, 51 N. W. 287; Commonwealth v. Brown, 91 Va. 762, 21 S. E. 357.

15 State v. Garrett, 29 La Ann. 637.

16 Whiting v. Mt. Pleasant, 11 Iowa, 482; Morford v. Unger, 8 Iowa, 82; Swift v. Newport, 7 Bush, 37; Humbolt County v. County Com'rs, 6 Nev. 30; Roby v. Shepard, 42 W. Va. 286, 26 S. E. 278.

visions are retrospective, and are not of the nature of a charter," while the original act is constitutive and wholly prospective.18 An act was entitled "An act to amend the charter of the town of Bessemer, and to reincorporate the same as the city of Bessemer, and to establish a charter therefor." There was no act to incorporate the town of Bessemer. It was held that the words as to amendment should be treated as surplusage and that the act was valid as an original and substantive piece of legislation.19 The charter of Mankato, Minn., made no provision for a municipal court. Later an act was passed to establish such a court. It was held that under a title to amend the charter of the city legislation dealing with the municipal court was void.20 But in another case it was held that an independent act, which in reality was amendatory of a private charter, could be dealt with under a title to amend the charter.21 A supplement to an act concerning inns and taverns made it a misdemeanor to sell intoxicating liquors from any ambulatory conveyance; held not within the title.22 An act, which by its title relates to certain counties, cannot be amended under the same title so as to relate to other counties.23 Where the title is to amend chapter 147, an amendment of chapter 117 is void. So where the title is to amend certain sections, and the enactment merely repeals those sections.25 Where the object is to amend both the

17 Parfitt v. Ferguson, 3 App. Div. 176, 38 N. Y. S. 466. See post, § 675.

18 Williamson v. Keokuk, 44 Iowa, 88; In re Kiernan, 6 T. & C. 320; State v. Newark, 34 N. J. L.

236, and Humbolt Co. v. County Com'rs, 6 Nev. 30, are liable to criticism for embracing provisions which are not strictly cognate with the purpose of the act as stated in the title. See Dolese v. Pierce, 124 Ill. 140, 16 N. E. 218.

24

20 State v. Porter, 53 Minn. 279, 55 N. W. 134.

21 Cassell v. Lexington, etc. Turnpike Co., 10 Ky. L. R. 486, 9 S. W. 502, 701.

22 Mack v. State, 60 N. J. L. 28, 36 Ati. 1088.

23 Farson v. South Brook, 54 Minn. 117, 55 N. W. 864.

24 State v. Looker, 54 Kan. 227, 38 Pac. 288.

25 Callahan v. Jennings, 16 Colo.

19 Judson v. Bessemer, 87 Ala. 240, 471, 27 Pac. 1055. Vice versa, sec6 So. 267.

tions cannot be amended under a

title and body of an act, the title of the amendatory act should set forth the nature of the amendment to the title, otherwise there is nothing in the title to give notice of what may be expected by way of amendment to the law. Chapter 257 of the general laws of Minnesota of 1899 was an act "to prevent the use of chemical agents as preservatives in milk, cream, cheese and butter." In 1901, under a title "to amend the title and section 1 of chapter 257, general laws of 1899," there was added to the title of the original act the words, "or food products of any nature whatever," and the body of the act was extended accordingly. The act was held void because the title was insufficient to indicate the wide extension of the provisions of the act.26 Where the title purported that an act was a supplement to a supplement, it was held that it must be germane to the latter, and that it was not enough that it was germane to the original act.27

§ 143 (98). Whether an act embraces a plurality of subjects. Similar subjects may be grouped and treated as a class for general legislation, embracing all or a part. There is evident in the later constitutions a strong preference for such legislation, and against special, where general acts are appropriate and practicable. Generalizations to answer all cognate wants require preparation and reflection. A particular need first attracts the attention of the legislator, and when he proceeds to frame a measure with reference to it, how comprehensive he will make it depends on his leisure, his courage, his capacity and his public spirit. There is a marked difference between an act treating of individual subjects as such, and embracing more than one, and an act which aims at a single purpose involving a plurality of subjects, and concerning all of them or several of them. The

title to repeal them. Trumble v. Trumble, 37 Neb. 340, 55 N. W. 869. 26 State v. Rumberg, $6 Minn. 399, 90 N. W. 1055, 1133.

27 New York & Greenwood Lake Ry. Co. v. Montclair, 47 N. J. Eq. 591, 21 Atl. 493.