3

pany under an amendatory act, which could have been constitutionally conferred under the original act." It was so held by the Supreme Court of Iowa, in a case where the act under consideration was entitled "an act to amend the act to incorporate the city of Muscatine." The amendatory act extended the limits of the city, and the court held that the law was valid, because this might have been done under the title of the original act.' It has also been said that "if the title of the original act is sufficient to embrace the provision in question, it is unnecessary to inquire whether the title of the amendatory act would of itself be sufficient." To illustrate this principle, it has been held that, where the title of the original act was an act to incorporate the Yellow River Improvement Company, an amendatory act whose title merely purported to amend the former act, might embrace a provision empowering the company to run logs and lumber on the river, after the same had been improved by it, and to take tolls therefor. This was not so disconnected with and foreign to the business of improving the river, as to form a new subject which could not be legitimately connected with the business of the improvement company created by the original act, and which might not therefore have been embraced under its title. The court, speaking through Taylor, J., said: "We are of the opinion that the title of the act is not so narrow and restricted as to prevent the conferring of any powers upon the company except such as relate strictly to the improvement of the river and the receiving of tolls for the use of such improvement. It is probably true that, when the title of an act incorporating a company indicates the business to be performed by such company, it would be a violation of the constitutional provision in question to provide in the act for the carrying on of a business by the corporation entirely disconnected with and different from that indicated in the title. The rule is, that any business which is properly connected with the business indicated by the title of the act, may be authorized to be done by the act, without violating the constitutional rule that it shall contain but one subject." An act is not

1 Yellow River Improvement Co. v. Arnold, 46 Wis. 214, 224, opinion by Taylor, J.

2 Morford v.

Unger, 8 Ia. 82.

3 Brandon v. State, 16 Ind. 197. 4 Yellow River Improvement Co. v. Arnold, 46 Wis. 214, 225.

necessarily invalid because, being amendatory of a previous act, the title does not expressly so state.1

12

§ 624. Illustrations of the Titles of Amendatory Acts.- A recent case in New York furnishes an excellent illustration of this. By an act, a corporation had been created whose business was the transmission of letters, packages and merchandise through pneumatic tubes under the streets of New York and Brooklyn. A supplementary act expressing in its title the same purpose contained in its body provisions, which in effect authorized the purposes of the corporation to be changed to the construction and maintenance of an underground steam or horse railroad. It was held that this was so wide a departure from the purpose of the act as expressed in the original title and in the title of the amendatory act, as to render it void. Earl, J., said: "A title purporting that an act provides for pneumatic transportation would not be sufficient for an act authorizing the construction and operation of a horse railway or a steam railway; as a title purporting that an act authorizes a line of omnibuses for the transportation of passengers, would not be sufficient for an act authorizing the construction of a railway for the same purpose. The above proposition is also well illustrated by a case in Pennsylvania, where the title of an act of incorporation of a passenger railway company authorized them to lay their tracks in a number of designated streets. Subsequently, an act was passed entitled "a supplement" [to the first named act] authorizing the company to declare dividends quarterly and to lay additional tracks of railway. It was held that this latter clause did not warrant a provision in the body of the amendatory act, authorizing the company to extend its railway into new territory not hitherto authorized to be used.3 So, where the title of the original act was, an act for the incorporation of manufacturing companies," and the title of the amendatory act was, 66 an act to amend section 1, of an act entitled an act for the incorporation of manufacturing companies,' "' etc., and this amendatory act contained a provision for the incorporation of companies to carry on a mercantile business, it was held that it was void.4 Another very apt illustration of this principle is furnished by an attempt to amend a statute of Michigan, the title of which was 66 an act to authorize the formation of corporations for literary and scientific purposes." The third section, in prescribing

1 Timm v. Harrison, 109 Ill. 503.

2 Astor v. Arcade R. Co., 113 N. Y. 93, 109; s. c. 20 Northeast. Rep. 594.

3 Union Passenger R. Co.'s Appeal,

81 Pa. St. 91.

4 Eaton v. Walker, 76 Mich. 579; s. c. 43 N. W. Rep. 638.

แ

what should be set forth by each society in the articles, included: Third, The objects for which it is organized, which shall be only for the promotion of literary and scientific pursuits." 1 The second section, in giving general directions for the agreement of incorporation contained a similar reference to this purpose. In 1867 an act was passed to amend section 2 of the above act so as to include "missionary and other benevolent purposes." 2 This amendment made that section read as follows: "SEC. 2. Any number of persons, not less than ten, who shall, by articles of agreement in writing, associate themselves together according to the provisions of this act, for literary or scientific purposes, or both, or for missionary or other benevolent purposes, and who shall comply with the provisions of this act, shall, with their successors and assigns, constitute a body politic and corporate," etc. An association was organized under this amendatory act, the objects of which were thus expressed in its articles: 3. The objects for which this corporation is organized, are: to encourage total abstinence from all intoxicating beverages, including cider, cordials, fermented and spirituous liquors of every kind, name and description; to provide relief in case of sickness and accident, and for the burial of deceased members; and to promote, foster and encourage literary pursuits of any kind among its members, including the cultivation of a taste for music and scientific acquirements, and to which end a library shall be procured and maintained." It was held that the amendatory act was not a valid statute; that no action depending upon it could be upheld, but that the original statute must be read as though the amendatory act had never been passed. In delivering the opinion of the court, Campbell, C. J., said: Our constitution is very positive in its requirement that' no law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title.' 3 The statute of 1865 is confined by its title expressly to literary and scientific purposes.' The third section declares that the objects for which corporations are organized under it shall be only for the promotion of literary and scientific pursuits.' The title and this section remain unchanged, and indicate a clear understanding that literary and scientific pursuits are not to be confounded with other matters, however proper and desirable. Our laws have always distinguished between religious purposes and those of general benevolence, as they have between purposes of benevolence and those of a different character. It has been deemed expedient to provide different regulations for all these subjects. No one can hesitate to see that the purpose of the statute of 1867 was to introduce an entirely new

6

66

1 Sess. Laws Mich. 1865, pp. 725, 726.

2 1 Sess. Laws Mich. 1867, p. 21.
3 Citing Const. Mich., art. 4, § 20.

object of legislation foreign to the existing statute, and incapable, by the most liberal construction, of falling within its terms. This being so, the new law could only have the effect of bringing in an amendment outside of the purpose indicated by the title, and inconsistent with section three, which conforms to the title, and which is not amended or repealed. Such an amendment is void, as within the express prohibition of the constitution. It does not seek to add to literary and scientific corporations any new incidental powers not inconsistent with their articles. It treats the whole matter added as a new and independent purpose, not requiring any connection with those mentioned in the title, and absolutely repugnant to the third section, which would necessarily be repealed as to its third subdivision, if the amendment could be upheld. " 1 "An act to amend the several acts in relation to the city of Rochester," has been held large enough as a title to embrace any matter relating to the business and government of that municipality, the court saying that " when the title of a local or private act expresses the general purpose or object, all matters fairly and reasonably connected with it, and all measures which will facilitate its accomplishment, are proper to be incorporated in the act and are germane to the title." And again: "Where the subject is general, comprehending all the functions of the corporation, provisions in relation to any of them, or necessary, or pertinent to accomplish and carry out any of them, may be, so far as this constitutional clause is concerned, incorporated in the bill. No one can be misled by such a title, and the legislators and people are alike notified of the purpose of the act.”2 Under 66 an act to reorganize the Medical Society of New Jersey," the powers of the former society could be repealed and new ones conferred. "An act to amend the charter of " a railroad company, may embrace a provision that "actions for injuries to stock and other property on said railroad by the company or its agents, must be brought within six months after such injury,". - the court saying: "This act relates to but one subject, and that is clearly expressed in the title, and the legislation under it is in reference to the subjectmatter of the title, and has a direct connection with it.”4

"An act to amend an act entitled an act to incorporate the Northwestern University,'" validly embraced a provision prohibiting the sale of ardent spirits within four miles of the University, under a penalty to be recovered by the county.5 An act to amend a certain

1 People v. Father Matthew &c. Society, 41 Mich. 67, 72.

2 People v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553; opinion by Church, C. J.

3 Hill v. Morrison, 46 N. J. L. 488.

chapter of the general statutes entitled "an act to provide for the formation of corporations," has been held sufficiently specific to embrace a provision requiring the payment of a fee to the Secretary of State of a corporation upon filing its certificate of organization.1

"An act to amend an act to create a commission of arbitration and award, to define the powers and duties thereof, and to make appropriation to pay the salaries of the judges thereof," which amended an act creating what is usually called a supreme court commission, by merely adding another duty to that originally imposed on the so-called commission of arbitration, was not obnoxious to such a constitutional provision.? "An act to amend the charter of a city, changing the office of city attorney from an appointive to an elective office, was held properly to embrace this provision.3 "An act to amend the charter" of a certain turnpike company, provided that "the charter of the said turnpike company be and the same is hereby repealed as follows, to wit," providing that the company should be relieved from the provisions of a general statute relating to the election of officers, and prescribing the manner in which the stock owned by the society should be voted. It was held that the subject of this act was sufficiently expressed in the title, the word "repealed" having been used instead of "amended" by an obvious mistake: it was an amendment according to legislative intent. 4 An act to amend the charter of the city of New York 5 has been held broad enough to embrace a provision prohibiting aldermen from sitting as judges of Oyer and Terminer and of the Sessions, and providing that the remaining judge in those courts should hold the courts without the aldermen. So, provisions for the extension of the limits of a city may be embraced under the title 66 an act to amend the charter of the city of," etc.7

§ 625. Void as to Matter not Expressed in Title, though Valid as to the Rest. On a principle elsewhere more fully stated, it is the constant practice of the courts to declare statutes which contain matters not expressed in their titles, void as to such matters, though valid as to the rest. In such cases

1 Edwards v. Denver &c. R. Co., 13 Colo. 59; 8. c. 21 Pac. Rep. 1011.

2 Stone v. Brown, 54 Tex. 331, 341. 3 Powell v. Jackson Common Council, 51 Mich. 129; citing Pack v. Barton, 47 Mich. 520.

4 Cassell v. Lexington &c. Turnp. Co. (Ky.), 9 S. W. Rep. 502.

5 The exact language of the title does not appear to be given in the report.

6 Phillips v. Mayor, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 483.

Prescott v. City of Chicago, 60 Ill. 121.

8 Post, § 658.