Imagens das páginas

would often fail of the intended object, from the inherent diffi. culty in expressing the legislative will when restricted to such narrow bounds."1 The generality of a title is therefore no objection to it, so long as it is not made a cover to legislation incongruous in itself, and which by no fair intendment can be considered as having a necessary or proper connection. The legislature must determine for itself how broad and comprehensive shall be the object of a statute, and how much particularity shall be employed in the title in defining it. One thing, however, is very


1 People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. question was entitled “ An act in 495. See also Morford v. Unger, relation to certain State roads therein 8 Iowa, 82, and Whiting v. Mount named.” It contained sixty-six secPleasant, 11 Iowa, 482; Bright v. tions, in which it established some McCulloch, 27 Ind. 223 ; Mayor, &c. forty-six roads, vacated some, and of Annapolis v. State, 30 Md. 112 ; provided for the re-location of others. State v. Union, 33 N. J. 350 ; Hum- The court sustained the act. - The boldt County v. Churchill Co. Com- object of an act may be broader or missioners, 6 Nev. 30; State v. Silver, narrower, more or less extensive; and 9 Nev. 227.

the broader it is, the more particulars 2 Indiana Central Railroad Co. v. will it embrace. . . . There is unPotts, 7 Ind. 681; People v. Briggs, doubtedly great objection to uniting 50 N. Y. 553 ; People v. Wands, 23 so many particulars in one act, but so Mich. 3$5; Washington Co. v. Frank- long as they are of the same nature, lin R. R. Co., 34 Md. 159.

and come legitimately under oue gen8 Woodson v. Murdock, 22 Wall. eral determination or object, we cannot 351. In State v. Powers, 14 Ind. 195, say that the act is unconstitutional." an act came under consideration, the P. 284. Upon this subject see Indiana title to which was, “ An act to amend Central Railroad Co. v. Potts, 7 Ind. the first section of an act entitled · An 684, where it is considered at length. act concerning licenses to vend foreign Also Brewster v. Syracuse, 19 N. Y. merchandise, to exhibit any caravan, 116; Hall v. Bunte, 20 Ind. 301; menagerie, circus, rope and wire danc- People o. McCallum, 1 Neb. 182; ing puppet-shows, and legerdemain,' Mauch Chunk v. McGee, 81 Peno. approved June 15, 1852, and for the St. 433. An act entitled * An act encouragement of agriculture, and fixing the time and mode of electing concerning the licensing of stock and State printer, defining his duties, fixexchange brokers.” It was held that ing compensation, and repealing all the subject of the act was licenses, laws coming in conflict with this act," and that it was not unconstitutional was sustained in Walker v. Dunham, as containing more than one subject. 17 Ind. 483. In the State v. Young, But it was held also that, as the 47 Ind. 150, the somewhat strict ruling licenses which it authorized and re- was made, that provisions punishing quired were specified in the title, the intoxication could not be embraced in act could embrace no others, and an act entitled “ To regulate the sale consequently a provision in the act of intoxicating liquors." In Kurtz requiring concerts to be licensed was v. People, 33 Mich. 279, the constituvoid. In State v. County Judge of tional provision is said to be “a very Davis County, 2 Iowa, 280, the act in wise and wholesome provision, in

plain ; that the use of the words “ other purposes," which [* 145] has heretofore been so common in the title to acts, with a view to cover any and every thing, whether connected with the main purpose indicated by the title or not, can no longer be of any avail where these provisions exist. As was said by the Supreme Court of New York in a case where these words had been made use of in the title to a local bill: “The words for other purposes must be laid out of consideration. They express nothing, and amount to nothing as a compliance with this constitutional requirement. Nothing which the act could not embrace without them can be brought in by their aid.” 1

3. What is embraced by the title. The repeal of a statute on a given subject, it is held, is properly connected with the subjectmatter of a new statute on the same subject; and therefore a repealing section in the new statute is valid, notwithstanding the title is silent on that subject. So an act to incorporate a railroad * company, it has been held, may authorize [146] counties to subscribe to its stock, or otherwise aid the construction of the road. So an act to incorporate the Firemen's

[ocr errors]

tended to prevent legislators from ments," was held not to express the
being entrapped into the careless pas- subject, because failing to specify the
sage of bills on matters foreign to the locality. Durkee v. Janesville, 26
ostensible purpose of the statute as Wis. 697.
entitled. But it is not designed to 2 Gabbert v. Railroad Co., 11 Ind.
require the body of the bill to be a 365. The constitution under which
mere repetition of the title. Neither this decision was made required the
is it intended to prevent including in law to contain but one subject, and
the bill such means as are reasonably matters properly connected therewith ;
adapted to secure the objects indi- but the same decision was made under
cated by the title." And see Mor- the New York Constitution, which
ton v. The Controller, 4 S. C. n. s. omits the words here italicized; and

it may well be doubted whether the
1 Town of Fishkill v. Fishkill and legal effect of the provision is varied
Beekman Plank Road Co., 22 Barb. by the addition of those words. See
642. See, to the same effect, Ryer- Guilford v. Cornell, 18 Barb. 640.
son r. Utley, 16 Mich. 269; St. Louis & Supervisors, &c. v. People, 25 III.
r. Tiefel, 42 Mo. 578. An act entitled 181. So a provision for the costs on
" An act to repeal certain acts therein appeal from a justice, is properly con-
named,” is void. People v. Mellen, nected with the subject of an act
32 III. 181. An act, having for its entitled “ of the election and qualifi-
sole object to legalize certain proceed- cation of justices of the peace, and
ings of the Common Council of Janes- defining their jurisdiction, powers, and
ville, but entitled merely ** An act to duties in civil cases.” Robinson. v.
legalize and authorize the assessment Skipworth, 23 Ind. 311.
of street improvements and assess-

Benevolent Association may lawfully include under this title provisions for levying a tax upon the income of foreign insurance companies, at the place of its location, for the benefit of the corporation. So an act to provide a homestead for widows and children was held valid, though what it provided for was the pecuniary means sufficient to purchase a homestead. So an act“ to regulate proceedings in the county court” was held to properly embrace a provision giving an appeal to the District Court, and regulating the proceedings therein on the appeal.3 So an act entitled “ An act for the more uniform doing of township business” may properly provide for the organization of townships. So it is held that the changing of the boundaries of existing counties is a matter properly connected with the subject of forming new counties out of those existing. So a provision for the organization and sitting of courts in new counties is properly connected with the subject of the formation of such counties, and may be included in “ an act to authorize the formation of new counties, and to change county boundaries.” 6 Many other cases are referred to in the note which will further illustrate the views of the courts upon this subject. There has been a general disposition to construe the constitutional provision liberally, rather than to embarrass legislation by a construction whose strictness is unnecessary to the accomplishment of the beneficial purposes for which it has been adopted.?

1 Firemen's Association v. Loung- Charlt. 368; Martin v. Broach, 6 bury, 21 lll. 511.

Geo. 21; Protho v. Orr, 12 Geo. 36; 2 Succession of Lanzetti, 9 La. Wheeler v. State, 23 Geo. 9; Hill r. Ann. 329.

Commissioners, 22 Geo. 203; Jones 8 Murphey v. Menard, 11 Tex. v. Columbus, 25 Geo. 610; Denham 673.

v. Holeman, 26 Geo. 182; Allen o. 4 Clinton v. Draper, 14 Ind. 295. Tison, 50 Geo. 374; Ex parte Conner,

6 Haggard v. Hawkins, 14 Ind. 51 Geo. 571; Brieswick v. Mayor, &c. 299. And see Duncombe v. Prindle, of Brunswick, 51 Geo. 639; People 12 Iowa, 1.

v. McCann, 16 N. Y. 58 ; Williams 6 Brandon v. State, 16 Ind. 197. v. People, 24 N, Y. 405 ; People v. In this case, and also in State v. Allen, 42 N. Y. 404; Huber v. People, Bowers, 14 Ind. 198, it was held that 49 N. Y. 132; People v. Rochester, if the title to an original act is suffi- 50 N. Y. 525; Wenzler v. People, 58 cient to embrace the matters covered N. Y. 516; People v. Dudley, 58 by the provisions of an act amenda- N. Y. 323; People o. Quigg, 59 tory thereof, it is unnecessary to N. Y. 83 ; Harris v. People, 59 N. Y. inquire whether the title of an amend- 599 ; In re Flatbush, 60 N. Y. 398; atory act would, of itself, be sufficient. People v. Willsea, 60 N. Y. 507; And see Morford v. Unger, 8 Iowa, 82. Railroad Co. 0. Whiteneck, 8 Ind.

7 Green v. Mayor, &c., R. M. 217 ; Wilkins v. Miller, 9 Ind. 100;

* 4. The effect if the title embrace more than one object. [* 147) Perhaps in those States where this constitutional provision Foley r. State, 9 Ind. 363 ; Gillespie McCallum, 1 Neb. 182 ; Smails v.

1 0 v. State, 9 Ind. 380; Mewherter v. White, 4 Neb. 353 ; Cutlip v. The Price, 11 Ind. 199; Reed v. State, Sheriff, 3 W. Va. 588 ; Shields r. 12 Ind. 611; Henry o. Henry, 13 Ind. Bennett, 8 W. Va. 74 ; Tuscaloosa 250; Igoe v. State, 14 Ind. 239; Stur- Bridge Co. v. Olmstead, 41 Ala. 9; geon v. Hitchens, 22 Ind. 107 ; Lauer Weaver v. Lapsely, 43 Ala. 224 ; r. State, 22 Ind. 461; Central Plank Ex parte Upshaw, 45 Ala. 234; LockRoad Co. v. Hannaman, 22 Ind. 484 ; hart v. Troy, 48 Ala. 579 ; Walker v. Garrigus v. Board of Commissioners, State, 49 Ala. 329 ; Simpson 0. 39 Ind. 66; McCaslin v. State, 44 Bailey, 3 Oreg. 515; Pope v. PhiInd. 151 ; Williams v. State, 48 Ind. fer, 3 Heisk. 682 ; Cannon v. Mathes, 306 ; Jackson v. Reeves, 53 Ind. 231; 8 Heisk. 504 ; State v. Newark, 34 Railroad Co. v. Gregory, 15 III. 20; N. J. 264 ; Gifford v. R. R. Co., 10 Firemen's Association v. Lounsbury, N. J. Eq. 171 ; Keller v. State, 11 21 Ill. 511; Ottowa v. People, 48 . Md. 525 ; Parkinson v. State, 14 Md. 233 ; Prescott v. City of Chicago, 60 184 ; Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 269 ; II. 121 ; People o. Brislin, 80 m. People v. Denahy, 20 Mich. 319; 423; McAunich v. Mississippi, &c. People v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44 ; R. R. Co., 20 Iowa, 338; State Kurtz v. People, 33 Mich. 279; DorSquires, 26 Iowa, 340; Chiles v. Drake, sey's Appeal, 72 Penn. St. 192 ; Alle2 Met. (Ky.) 146; Phillips v. Bridge gheny County Home's Case, 77 Penn.

) Co., 2 Met. (Ky.) 222; Johnson v. Hig- St. 77 ; Morton v. Comptroller-Gengins, 3 Met. (Ky.) 566; Louisville, eral, 4 S. C. n. 8. 430 ; State v. &c. Co. o. Ballard, 2 Met. (Ky.) 165; Gurney, 4 S. C. N. s. 520 ; Norman Phillips o. Covington, &c. Co., 2 Met. v. Curry, 27 Ark. 410 ; Division of (Ky.) 219 ; Chiles v. Monroe, 4 Met. Howard County, 15 Kan. 191 ; Com(Ky.) 72; Hind v. Rice, 10 Bush, monwealth v. Drewey, 15 Grat. 1. 528 ; Cannon v. Heniphill, 7 Tex. In Davis v. Woolnough, 9 Iowa, 184; Battle v. Howard, 13 Tex, 345; 104, an act entitled “ An act for Robinson v. State, 15 Tex. 311 ; revising and consolidating the laws Antonio Gould, 34 Tex. 49; incorporating the city of Dubuque, Ex parte Hogg, 36 Tex. 14 ; State and to establish a city court therein,” 1. Shadle, 41 Tex. 404; State v. was held to express by its title but McCracken, 42 Tex. 383 ; Laefon one object, which was, the revising r. Dufoe, 9 La. Ann. 329; State v. and consolidating the laws incorporatHarrison, 11 La. Anp. 722 ; Bosier ing the city; and the city court, not r. Steele, 13 La. Ann. 433 ; Williams being an unusual tribunal in such a e. Payson, 14 La Ann. 7; Wisners v. municipality, might be provided for Monroe, 25 La. Ann. 598; Whited by the act, whether mentioned in the 1. Lewis, 25 La. Ann. 568 ; State title or not. " An act to enable the 6. Lafayette County Court, 41 Mo. supervisors of the city and county of 221; State v. Miller, 45 Mo. 495 ; New York to raise money by tax,” Tuttle v. Strout, 7 Minn. 465; State provided for raising money to pay

Gut, 13 Minn. 341 ; Stuart v. Kin- judgments then existing, and also sella, 14 Minn. 524 ; Mills v. Charle- any thereafter to be recovered; and ton, 29 Wis. 400; Evans 0. Sharpe, it also contained the further pro29 Wis. 564 ; Single v. Supervisors vision, that whenever the controller of Marathon, 38 Wis. 363 ; People v. of the city should have reason to

[* 148] is limited * in its operation to private and local bills, it

might be held that an act was not void for embracing two or more objects which were indicated by its title, provided one of them only was of a private and local nature. It has been held in New York that a local bill was not void because embracing general provisions also ;and if they may constitutionally be embraced in the act, it is presumed they may also be constitutionally embraced in the title. But if the title to the act actually indicates, and the act itself actually embraces, two distinct objects, when the constitution says it shall embrace but one, the whole act must be treated believe that any judgment then of sessed by the company. The money record or thereafter obtained had arising from the sale, after paying been obtained by collusion, or was costs, was to be applied, first, to the founded in fraud, he should take the payment of a certain judgment, and proper and necessary means to open then to other liens according to priand reverse the same, &c. This pro- ority ; and the surplus, if any, was vision was held constitutional, as to be divided ratably among the other properly connected with the subject creditors, and then if there should be indicated by the title, and necessary an overplus, it was to be divided to confine the payments of the tax to ratably among the then stockholders. the objects for which the moneys By the second section of the act, it were intended to be raised. Sharp was declared that the purchaser or v. Mayor, &c. of New York, 31 Barb. purchasers should have the right to 572. In O'Leary v. Cook Co., 28 Ill. sell and distribute stock to the full 531, it was held that a clause in an amount which was authorized by the act incorporating a college, prohibit- act of incorporation, and the several ing the sale of ardent spirits within amendments thereto ; and to appoint a distance of four miles, was so ger- an election, choose directors, and mane to the primary object of the organize a corporation anew, with charter as to be properly included the same po ers as the existing within it. By the first section of company. There was then a proviso, “ an act for the relief of the creditors that nothing in the act should impair of the Lockport and Niagara Falls or affect the subscriptions for new Railroad Company,” it was made the stock, or the obligations or liabilities duty of the president of the corpora- of the company which had been made tion, or one of the directors to be or incurred in the extension of the appointed by the president, to adver- road from Lockport to Rochester, &c. tise and sell the real and personal The whole act was held to be constiestate, including the franchise of the tutional. Mosier v. Hilton, 15 Barb. company, at public auction to the 657. And see Mills v. Charleton, 29 highest bidder. It was then declared Wis. 400,- a very liberal case; Erthat the sale should be absolute, and linger v. Boneau, 51 III. 94 ; State v. that it should vest in the purchaser Newark, 34 N. J. 236; Smith v. Comor purchasers of the property, real or monwealth, 8 Bush, 108; State v. personal, of the company, all the St Louis Cathedral, 23 La. Ann. 720 ; franchise, rights, and privileges of Simpson v. Bailey, 3 Oreg. 515; Neifthe corporation, as fully and as abso- ing v. Pontiac, 56 Ill. 172. lutely as the same were then pos- 1 People v. McCann, 16 N. Y. 58.

« AnteriorContinuar »