"An act to incorporate the Bloomingdale Grove Park Association" authorized the establishment of a fish and game preserve of thirty thousand acres in a particular county for the exclusive use of members and forbade trespassing or poaching under severe penalties. The title was held misleading and insufficient because it did not specify the county where the park was to be located and because the word "park," in the American sense, means ground set apart for public use for recreation and pleasure.42

44

§ 148. Acts to create municipal corporations or to revise, consolidate or amend their charters.- An act to incorporate a city may contain provisions relating to the various subjects upon which municipal legislation may be required for the preservation of the peace, the promotion of its growth and prosperity, and for the raising of revenue for its government. It may confer the necessary legisla tive, taxing, judicial and police powers the grant of them is one subject. The whole thing, the creation of the municipality, is that subject; the parts of it are separate subjects, but parts of one general subject. So an act to consolidate a city and provide for its government embraces but one subject. It may properly embrace the details for uniting different municipalities, providing for the payment of their debts, the government of the city, and all the minutia to which the general administration of its affairs would lead. The revision of an act which has incorporated a municipality announces but one subject. It may treat of the essential parts of the whole as well as may the original creative enactment.47 An act to revise and consolidate the several acts

42 Commonwealth v. Hazen, 207 Pa. St. 52, reversing S. C., 20 Pa. Supr. Ct. 487.

43 Louisiana v. Pilsbury, 105 U.S. 278, 26 L. Ed. 1090; City of Jacksonville v. Basnett, 20 Fla. 525; People v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 560.

44 Harris v. People, 59 N. Y. 599; Attorney-General v. Amos, 60 Mich.

45

46

372; People v. Pond, 67 id. 98, 34 ́ N. W. 647; People v. Hurst, 41 Mich. 328.

45 Id.

46 Louisiana v. Pilsbury, 105 U.S. 278, 26 L. Ed. 1090; City of Covington v. Voskotter, 80 Ky. 219; State v. Haskell Co., 40 Kan. 65, 19 Pac. 362.

47 Harris v. People, 59 N. Y. 602.

in relation to the charter of a city embraces but one subject. The charter consists of the creative act and all acts in force relating to the corporation. The word "consolidate" signifies that all the acts are to be brought into and reenacted in one act. The subject is broad enough to embrace the details of the city government.48 An act to make further provision for the government of a city or county is one to provide ways and means for its support, a revenue act, not one which can contain any provision to reorganize or change the government or its organic law.49

51

When the title of an act indicates the general purpose to incorporate a municipal corporation, or to revise, consolidate or amend the charter of such a corporation, the following provisions have been held to be germane and within the title: authority to issue bonds in aid of a railroad; 50 provisions for adjusting the property rights and interests between the municipality created and the political division from which it was cut off; provision for a board of police commissioners, named by the governor and self-perpetuating; 52 conferring the power of eminent domain for opening streets; requiring street railways to pave a part of the streets which they occupy; giving damages for re-grading streets; that no one should acquire title to any street, lane, alley or public square by adverse possession; authorizing the issue of bonds to construct a combination railroad and

53

54

48 People v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 560, 561.

49 Gaskin v. Meek, 42 N. Y. 186; People v. O'Brien, 38 id. 193. This last case decides that there cannot be included in a revenue bill entitled to give authority to raise money by tax for the use of a city corporation, and regulating its disbursement, a provision amending the charter in relation to the official term of councilmen and the time of their election. See Huber v. People, 49 N. Y. 139.

56

50 Board of Trustees v. Maysville, 97 Ky. 145, 30 S. W. 1.

51 People v. Carson, 10 Misc. 237, 30 N. Y. S. 817.

52 Americus v. Perry, 114 Ga. 871, 40 S. E. 1004.

53 State v. North Plainfield, 63 N. J. L. 61, 42 Atl. 805.

54 Atlanta v. Gate City St. Ry. Co., 80 Ga. 276, 4 S. E. 269.

55 Sligh v. Grand Rapids, 84 Mich. 497, 47 N. W. 1093.

56 Crawford v. Ross, 126 Mich. 624, 86 N. W. 132.

wagon bridge across an abutting river; 57 providing that a court may revoke license of one convicted of violating an Ordinance; 5 providing that the county treasurer shall pay Over to the city treasurer the city taxes collected by him, with all interest and penalties and with its proportion of the interest paid by banks on moneys deposited by the county treasurer.59

On the other hand, under similar titles, the following provisions were held not germane and void: That all funds. arising under the general revenue laws of the state from liquor licenses issued to parties within the city should bepaid over to the city treasurer for use of the public schools; 60 authority to make repairs on a toll road partly within the city and collect the cost by suit from the company; authority to build a county court-house and to issue bonds there-for; 62 that the city should afford fire and police protection to the state property within its limits and care for the streets and walks on which state property abuts and that the expense should be paid out of the state treasury; 63 creating a police district, including the city and extending one and one-half miles beyond its limits; providing for the election of a county assessor.65

66

64

Such a title will cover provisions establishing a municipal court, but will not justify the creation of a court for other than city purposes," nor a provision forbidding the prosecution before a justice of the peace under a state law

57 South St. Paul v. Lamprecht Bros. Co., 88 Fed. 449, 31 C. C. A. 585.

62 Thompson v. Luverne, 128 Ala. 567, 29 So. 326.

63 Lansing v. Board of State Au

58 State v. Anderson, 63 Minn. ditors, 111 Mich. 327, 69 N. W. 723. 208, 65 N. W. 265.

59 Crookston v. County Com'rs, 79 Minn. 283, 82 N. W. 586, 79 Am. St. Rep. 453.

64 Blair v. State, 90 Ga. 326, 17 S. E. 96, 35 Am. St. Rep. 206.

65 Haverly v. State, 63 Neb. 83, 88 N. W. 171; State v. Haverly, 63 Neb.

60 Woolf v. Taylor, 98 Ala. 254, 13 87, 88 N. W. 172. So. 688.

66 Clemmensen v. Petersen, 35 Ore.

61 Mt. Joy v. Turnpike Co., 182 Pa. 47, 56 Pac. 1015. St. 581, 38 Atl. 411.

67 Ex parte Flagg, 38 Tex. Crim.. Rep. 573, 44 S. W. 294.

68

of a person who has already been arraigned before the mayor under an ordinance for the same offense; nor a provision that the mayor and, in case of his disqualification, three members of the council, shall constitute a court for the trial of certain offenses within the city.69

A general act for the incorporation of municipalities may make provision for the annexation of territory thereto." It has been held in Kentucky that, under a title to amend the charter of a town, its limits may be extended," but the contrary has been held in Colorado." An act to incorporate a town may not change the county relations of its territory, though its territory is taken partly from each of two counties. Where territory which had been constituted a county under a void act was created a township, under a title to create the township of Garfield, it was held that a provision attaching it to Finney county was valid.

73

Where the title is to re-incorporate a municipality or to amend its charter, it is held sufficient to cover provisions legalizing prior acts or proceedings.75 "An act to alter and amend the several acts incorporating the town of S., and to confer upon said town of S. a municipal government," was held broad enough to cover provisions changing the town to a city, the word "municipal" being ambiguous and sufficient to cover either town or city government. "An act to amend the charter of the city of St. Paul in relation to the duties and powers of the board of public works of said

68 Bell v. State, 115 Ala. 87, 22 So. .453.

69 Brown v. State, 79 Ga. 324, 4 So. 861.

74 State v. Lewwelling, 51 Kan. 562, 33 Pac. 425.

75 People v. Sutphin, 166 N. Y. 163, 59 N. E. 770; Nottage v. Port

70 In re Lackawana Tp., 160 Pa. land, 35 Ore. 539, 58 Pac. 883, 76 St. 494, 28 Atl. 927.

Am. St. Rep. 513. Compare Mat

71 Parkland v. Gaines, 88 Ky. 562, ter of City of Rochester, 77 App. 11 S. W. 649.

72 Denver v. Coulehan, 20 Colo. 471, 39 Pac. 425, 27 L. R. A. 751. 73 Cahoon v. Iron Gate L. & I. Co., 92 Va. 367, 23 S. E. 767.

Div. 28, 79 N. Y. S. 236; Percival v. Cowychee, etc. Dist., 15 Wash. 480, 46 Pac. 1035.

76 Sessions v. State, 115 Ga. 18, 41 S. E. 259.

city" did not name the board of public works in the body of the act, but related to local improvements over which that board had control and supervision. The act was held valid." An act to provide for the creation of the city of P., now known as the provincial municipality of P., provided that the city should have control of wharves, and should appoint a harbor commissioner, with certain duties, and a harbor-master, who should perform all the duties. then performed by the harbor-master under the statutes of the state. The existing harbor-master was thus displaced and the laws relating to his office materially changed. It was held that the title was misleading and the provisions. in question were void.78 "An act to incorporate the city of Lakeside, to provide for its future annexation to the city of Duluth and to the independent school district of Duluth," in its first eleven chapters incorporated certain territory as the city of L., and provided for its government, and in chapter 12 provided that on a certain date, a year and a half later, the city should become a part of the city of Duluth. The act was held to embrace but one subject and to be valid.79

77 Ek v. St. Paul Permanent Loan Co., 84 Minn. 245, 87 N. W. 844.

78 State v. Burns, 38 Fla. 367, 21 So. 290; State v. Slocum, 38 Fla. 407, 21 So. 1028. In the former case the court says that in an act to create an original municipality such a provision would have been proper, but that the words "now known," etc., are restrictive and indicate an intent to deal with the existing municipality and were misleading. 'The title," says the court, "with the clause in it is calculated to divert attention from any proposition to subject the harbor-master of the port of Pensacola to municipal con trol, in that it directed attention to the creation of a city, then known as

the provisional municipality of Pensacola, which in no way controlled the appointment of the harbor-master." p. 390.

79 State v. La Vaque, 47 Minn. 106, 49 N. W. 525. The court says: "Taking the entire act together, it is, in substance, only an act providing for the government of the territory described in it; providing for its government temporarily under the provision of an independent charter, and for its gov ernment after the period specified, under the provisions of the charter of Duluth, with two or three unimportant exceptions - exceptions that might have been made had the territory been originally