ness within the State of Michigan, we shall therefore not discuss or consider any Federal questions, as there is no averment or intimation in the bill that any of the companies involved are doing or contemplating an interstate commerce business. There is no allegation in the bill of complaint that the complainant is affected in any way or manner other or different than is the public generally. Act No. 138, Public Acts of 1911, bears intrinsic evidence of legislative intent to confine its provisions to intrastate telephone business. Such intention is fairly inferable from the language of both the title and the act.

We think it is well settled in this State that grievances which afflict the community must be redressed by those to whom the law has intrusted the duty of interference. Such has been the rule of law in this State for many years. Miller v. Grandy, 13 Mich. 540. It was there held that private persons could not assume to themselves the right to institute proceedings in chancery to redress grievances on behalf of the public. They can only proceed where their individual grievances are distinct from those of the public at large, and such as give them a private right to redress. In that case Justice CAMPBELL said:

"This bill can only be sustained by holding that every private citizen has the right to call public officers to account for their official misconduct, affecting the body politic, and not specially one man more than another. There were a few cases decided in the Supreme Court of New York, which recognized such a right; but they have been overruled repeatedly, and the doctrine is now well settled that a private taxpayer, suffering under no special grievance, is not even a proper party to a bill filed to restrain threatened misconduct. * * * And grievances which afflict the community must be redressed by those to whom the law has intrusted the duty of interference."

In Steffes v. Moran, 68 Mich. 291 (36 N. W. 76), it was held that public wrongs must, in this State, be redressed by the people's public agents, and not by private

intervention; and that the case of Miller v. Grandy, supra, laid down the Michigan doctrine on this subject, with its reasons, and has been adhered to.

In Sweet v. Smith, 153 Mich. 674 (117 N. W. 59), this court was asked to review an order of the circuit court for the county of Wayne denying a mandamus, prayed for by the relator and others, compelling the respondent "to execute and enforce all the laws pertaining to the preservation of the Sabbath, or the first day of the week, at the baseball park of the Detroit club." The purpose of the proceeding was to prohibit Sunday baseball playing in the city of Detroit. In a per curiam opinion this court said:

"It does not appear that the grievance of the petitioners is any other than that sustained by other citizens of the city of Detroit. Neither does it appear that the attorney general of the State has refused to take action in the matter. Under these circumstances, petitioners have no right to relief. The grievance complained of is purely a public grievance, and redress should have been sought by the people's public agents, and not by private intervention. See People, ex rel. Russel!, v. Inspector and Agent of State Prison, 4 Mich. 187; Miller v. Grandy, 13 Mich. 540; People, ex rel. Delbridge, v. Green, 29 Mich. 121; People, ex rel. McBride, v. Board of Sup'rs of Kent County, 38 Mich. 422; Steffes v. Moran, 68 Mich. 291 (36 N. W. 76); Smith v. City of Saginaw, 81 Mich. 123 (45 N. W. 964).

"The decision of the circuit court was clearly correct, and we decline to review it in this court.'

This subject was fully discussed and many cases cited in the recent case of International Harvester Co. v. Eaton Circuit Judge, 163 Mich. 55, at pages 66 and 67 (127 N. W. 695, 30 L. R. A. [N. S.] 580, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1022). Under the provisions of Act No. 255, Public Acts of 1899, and the supplementary act of 1905, relating to trusts and monopolies, the attorney general is directed to institute quo warranto proceedings, or proceedings by injunction or otherwise, in so far as a corporation is con

174 MICH.-15.

cerned, and no such right of action is given, as is claimed here.

In our opinion this ground of the demurrer was well taken and should be sustained.

2. The other grounds of demurrer above referred to may be disposed of together, in answer to the claim of the complainant that the last clause of section 6 of Act No. 138, Public Acts of 1911, is unconstitutional because not within the title of the act; it being the claim of complainant that such provision is void under section 21 of article 5 of the Constitution of the State of Michigan, which provides: "No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title."

The title of the act is as follows:

"An act to declare telephone lines and telephone companies within the State of Michigan to be common carriers, to regulate the same and prescribing a penalty for the violation of this act."

It is the argument of the complainant that that part of the act authorizing a merger of competing companies cannot be said to be expressed in the title; that there is nothing contained in the title that would indicate any authority to consolidate or merge competing companies; and that the title of an act should indicate the object to be attained. It is the further claim of the complainant that the only power sought to be given by the act to the railroad commission to authorize a merger is contained in the clause of section 6, reading as follows:

"Provided, that the provisions of this section in regard to switching charges shall not apply when two or more competing companies in any locality shall merge or consolidate their property and business in such locality under the direction of the said railroad commission of this State, or when one competing company shall sell or lease its plant, property and business to another company in the same locality, such merger, consolidation, sale or lease, if with the approval of the said railroad commission, being hereby declared lawful."

It is well that we add the final clause of this section, which is as follows:

"The Michigan railroad commission may make all such reasonable rules or orders as may be reasonable or necessary to carry out the intent of the provisions of this section, and refusal to obey such rules, orders or provisions of this section shall be unlawful."

The act gives the railroad commission general control over telephone companies, refers to the subjects of the service, facilities, and use of lines, and the title of the act is "to regulate the same." It does not read to simply regulate the rates, etc.; it must mean to regulate the operation of telephone lines and telephone companies. This certainly must mean regulation of the business, and regulation embraces both government and restriction, as we have frequently held.

We think that it cannot be reasonably urged that the only power given to the railroad commission to authorize a merger or purchase by one company from another is contained in the clause quoted in section 6. A careful reading of the act discloses that it is provided in section 2 of the act that the Michigan railroad commission shall have the general control of all telephones, telephone lines, and telephone companies within the State. This it seems to us has to do with regulation, and falls within the title of the act. Section 3 requires telephone companies to furnish reasonably adequate service, at reasonable rates, and gives to the commission the power to act upon the rates fixed, and to regulate by rules or order any service or facility. Section 4 is the anti-rebate section, which is clearly a regulation against unjust discrimination, etc. Section 5 relates to the same subject. The first part of section 6 provides for physical connections on the order of the commission, interchange of service, division of expense, switching service, compensation, settlement with terminal companies, subscribers to pay fee, and switching point to be designated by railroad commission. All of these matters are provided for before we reach the proviso above set

forth. All these matters have to do with regulation. Then comes the clause providing that the provisions of the section in regard to switching charges shall not apply when two or more competing companies in any locality shall merge or consolidate their property and business in such locality under the direction of the said railroad commission of this State, or when one competing company shall sell or lease its plant, property, and business to another company in the same locality, with the approval of the railroad commission, which is thereby declared lawful. May it not be said that there is a restriction on the power of the railroad commission? It was given general control by section 2.

This court held, in Westgate v. Adrian Township, 161 Mich. 333 (126 N. W. 422), that by the term "regulate," in the title of an act, both government and restriction are intended. That case reviews and discusses most of the decisions of this State upon the subject, and may be cited as covering the entire question of title. It was there held that any provision germane to the subject expressed in a title may properly be included in the act; that it is sufficient if the title fairly expresses the subject, or is sufficiently comprehensive to include the several provisions relating to or connected with that subject, citing Cooley on Constitutional Limitations (6th Ed.), p. 172; People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481; People v. Kelly, 99 Mich. 82 (57 N. W. 1090); Soukup v. Van Dyke, 109 Mich. 679 (67 N. W. 911); Fortin v. Electric Co., 154 Mich. 316 (117 N. W. 741). An examination of the following cases cited in that opinion, holding that the word "regulate" means both government and restriction, is enlightening upon this subject: Dillon v. Railroad Co., 19 Misc. Rep. 116, 43 N. Y. Supp. 320; City of Rochester v. West, 164 N. Y. 510 (58 N. E. 673, 53 L. R. A. 548, 79 Am. St. Rep. 659); McWethy v. Power Co., 202 Ill. 218 (67 N. E. 9). The following authorities also may be examined upon the point that this prohibition of the Constitution should receive a reasonable and not a technical