requirement that the subject shall be expressed in the title as frequently to raise a single question, when the validity of a particular statute is under consideration, is, notwithstanding, a separate question. The cases cited above on the question of the sufficiency of the title to indicate the subject-matter throw much light upon the collateral question whether such a plurality of subjects is dealt with in a single statute as to make it obnoxious to the constitutional provision. In addition to those cases are many which deal more especially with the question here under discussion, and which, therefore, may be classified here. One subject only, within the meaning of this constitutional requirement, has been held to be embraced in an act separating the offices of receiver and commissioner, providing for their appointment, and defining their duties; in an act relating to lands and levees; an act relating to the compensation of executors, administrators, guardians, and county commissioners; 3 an act defining the duties and fixing the compensation of a state officer and providing for vacancies; and an act to revise the general statutes. Provisions relating to the mode of accomplishing the object of an act constitute a part of the subject-matter and not a separate subject. So various pertinent details come within the general subject. The requirement should not be so construed as to restrict legislation to an extent that will render different

1. Smith v. Com., 8 Bush (Ky.) 108. 2. Police Jury v. Colomb, 20 La. Ann. 196.

3. Key v. Jones, 52 Ala. 238. 4. Walker v. Dunham, 17 Ind. 483. 5. Oshe v. State, 37 Ohio St. 494. 6. People v. Lawrence, 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 177; State v. Miller, 100 Mo. 439: Bergman v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 88 Mo. 678; 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 588; Ewing v. Hoblitzell, 85 Mo. 64; Hope v. Gainesville, 72 Ga. 246; Brown v. State, 73 Ga. 38; Crawfordville, etc., Turnpike Co. v. Fletcher, 104 Ind. 97; Golden Canal Co. v. Bright, 8 Colo. 144; People v. Goddard, 8 Colo. 432; Willis v. Standard Oil Co. (Minn. 1892), 52 N. W. Rep. 652.

An act having for its object the preservation of the public health, may include provisions for the payment and control of policemen and police commissioners. State v. Covington, 29 Ohio St. 102.

An act for the appointment of two coal and coke boat gaugers, to fix their compensation and to define their duties, embraces but one subject. State v. Pittsburg, etc., Coal Co., 41 La. Ann. 465. So also an act creating a commission of arbitration and award, and defining the powers and duties thereof,

and making appropriations to pay the salaries of judges thereof. Stone v. Brown, 54 Tex. 330.

The same statute may regulate the sale, alienation, removal, etc., of animals. State v. Deitz, 30 Tex. 511.

7. Hare v. Kennerly, 83 Ala. 608; Block v. State, 66 Ala. 493; Tatum v. State, 82 Ala. 5; Gunter 7. Dale County, 44 Ala. 639; Ex parte Upshaw, 45 Ala. 234; Martin v. Hewitt, 44 Ala. 433. See also Tuttle v. Strout, 7 Minn. 465; 82 Am. Dec. 108; Clay v. Central R. & B. Co., 84 Ga. 345; Hoboken v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 124 U. S. 656.

An act providing for the organization and government of a state hospital embraces but one subject. Overseers of Poor v. Clearfield County (Va. 1890), 19 Atl. Rep. 952; as does an act regulating the use of water for irrigation and providing for settling priorities of water rights, Golden Canal Co. v. Bright, 8 Colo. 144; and an act providing for the sale of public lands for specified purposes, and the investment of the proceeds, Looney v. Bagly (Tex. 1887), 7 S. W. Rep. 360; and an act requiring that all mortgages filed with the registrar of deeds for record shall be by him reported to the tax assessor of the county, and that no mortgage

acts necessary, when the whole subject-matter is connected and may be properly embraced in the same act. It has been said that the question must be determined by the act itself and not by its title. An amendment in two particulars may be good.3 If the two subjects are separable, that which is indicated by the title may stand; 4 but if the title indicates both subjects, the act must fail.5

Municipal incorporation acts may embrace many matters without violating the constitutional provision."

Provisions authorizing the removal of a county seat and com

shall be recorded which does not give the name and residence of the mortgagee. People v. Board of Supervisors (Mich. 1888), 38 N. W. Rep. 639.

An act to establish evidence of title to real property, and to restore the record of the same, and to provide for the recording of deeds, embraces more than one subject. In re Goode, 3 Mo. App. 226. See also State v. Shadle, 41 Tex. 404; Smails 7. White, 4 Neb. 353; Davies v. Saginaw County, 89 Mich. 295; Webb v. New York, 64 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 10; Klein v. State Treasurer, 42 La. Ann. 174; State v. Harrison, La. Ann. 722; Maranthe v. Hunter, 11 La. Ann. 734; State v. Adeline, 11 La. Ann. 736; State v.Kolsem, 130 Ind. 434.

A local act entitled, "An act to provide for transmission of letters, packages, and merchandise in the cities of New York and Brooklyn, and across the North and East rivers, by means of pneumatic tubes to be constructed beneath the surface of the streets and public places in said cities and under the waters of said rivers," embraces but one subject. Astor v. Arcade R. Co., 113 N. Y. 93; 1 N. Y. Supp. 174; Bailey v. New York A. R. Co., I N. Y. Supp. 304.

1. Phillips v. Covington, etc., Bridge Co., 2 Metc. (Ky.) 219; Hoke v. Com., 79 Ky. 573.

2. Greaton v. Griffin, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 313; People v. Lawrence, 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 176.

3. State v. Brown, 41 La. Ann. 771. 4. People v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 566; People v. Parks, 58 Cal. 624; Webb v. New York, 64 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 12.

5. Skinner v. Wilhelm, 63 Mich. 568. 6. Municipal Incorporation Acts. Harris v. People, 59 N. Y. 601, the court saying, among other things: "The whole thing, the creation of the municipality, is the subject of the act; and the parts of it are not separate sub

jects, but separate parts of one general subject."

An act incorporating a city may provide for establishment of a court therein. Davis v. Woolnough, 9 Iowa 104; or may provide for future annexation to another city, embraces but one subject. State v. La Vaque, 47 Minn. 106.

A local act incorporating a town situated in two counties does not embrace more than one subject in providing that notices, required to be published in either county, shall be published in a newspaper in the town. More v. Deyoe, 22 Hun (N. Y.) 208.

An act consolidating various acts in relation to the charter of a city embraces but one subject. Hannibal v. Marion County, 69 Mo. 571. So, also, an act repealing the charter of certain municipal corporations, and providing that their property shall be transferred to the custody and control of the state, to remain public property for the uses to which it had been formerly applied. Luehrman v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 425.

But an act which, professing to amend a particular section of a city charter, amends such section and expressly repeals other sections, and adds numerous powers necessary to municipal government, embraces more than one subject and is void. Ex parte Reynolds, 87 Ala. 138; as is an act consolidating several acts incorporating a city and confirming certain ordinances of such city theretofore passed. Brieswick v. Brunswick, 51 Ga. 639; 21 Am. Rep. 240; and an act prescribing a mode by which municipal corporations may surrender or abolish their charters, and also how they may amend their charters. Murphy v. State, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 373; and an act incorporating two towns in different parts of the state. King v. Banks, 61 Ga. 20.

An act enabling municipalities to

pensating the owners of real estate taken as a site for county buildings, have been held to be in furtherance of a single object; 1 also provisions authorizing the removal of a county seat and an issue of bonds to raise funds with which to build a courthouse at the new county seat. But acts prescribing the manner of chang

ing parish lines, and removing a parish seat;1 locating a county seat, and authorizing supervisors to sell county property;2 providing for transferring the charge of jails from sheriffs to county boards, and for the employment of prisoners, and to regulate their terms of service, have been held to embrace more than one subject.3

It is not always easy to determine whether particular provisions of a statute are incidental and subordinate to the principal subject, or whether they constitute independent subjects. Thus, an act regulating the civil jurisdiction of justices of the peace, police justices, and quarterly courts, and the appellate jurisdiction of circuit courts, and authorizing the quarterly courts to appoint clerks, has been held to embrace but one subject, while the contrary has been affirmed of an act establishing an inferior court of criminal jurisdiction in a county, and defining the jurisdiction of such court, and the criminal jurisdiction of justices of the peace in the county.5

A statute prescribing the punishment for several different crimes embraces but one object, namely, the prevention of the crimes mentioned.6

confirming certain orders of a county judge, appointing commissioners to issue bonds and legalizing all proceedings under such orders, Rogers v. Stevens, 86 N. Y. 623; an act legalizing and validating certain irregular proceedings of the town authorities in relation to the building of a bridge does not, in making the value rather than the contract price the measure of compensation and liability for the work, embrace more than one subject. Wrought Iron Bridge Co. v. Attica, 2 N. Y. Supp. 359.

An act to enable the county commissioners of W. county to settle and prevent controversies arising out of the organization thereof, by retaining a town designated by the governor as the temporary seat of said county for five years, and by paying certain claims which accrued before its organization embraces but one subject. State v. Sanders, 42 Kan. 228.

1. Moore v. Police Jury, 32 La. Ann. 1013.

2. Cutlip v. Cahoon County, 3 W. Va. 88.

3. State v. Smith, 47 N. J. L. 200. 4. Courts and Juries.-Allen v. Hall, 14 Bush (Ky.) 85.

An act redistricting a state, prescribing the number and salaries of district judges, and fixing the place of holding courts, embraces but one subject. State v. Atherton, 19 Nev. 332.

Miles 2.

6. Crimes and Offenses. State, 40 Ala. 39. An act regulating the manufacture, transportation, use and sale of explosives, and providing the punishment for the improper use of the same, embraces but one subject, Hronek v. People, 134 Ill. 139; 23 Am. St. Rep. 652. So also an act fixing the time for the opening and closing of saloons and gaming-houses, Ex parte Livingstone, 20 Nev. 282; an act providing that "any person who shall be drunk in any highway, or in any public place or in his own house, or in any private building, disturbing his family or others,

An act providing for the registration of voters in certain cities, governing elections in such cities, and creating the office of recorder of voters, has been held to embrace but one subject.1 On the other hand, an act providing for the incorporation of merchants' mutual insurance companies, and regulation of the business of insurance by merchants' and manufacturers' insurance companies, has been held bad. An act prescribing penalties for the unlawful manufacture, sale, and keeping for sale, of intoxicating liquors, and regulating the sale, barter, and giving away of such liquors for medicinal, scientific, and mechanical purposes, embraces but one subject.3

In statutes for the relief of laborers, employés, and mechanics, these rules have been applied.4

The requirement that the act shall contain but one "object does not intend that an act contemplating the accomplishment of

shall be guilty of a misdemeanor:" State v. Brown, 38 Kan. 390; an act for the protection of public health, and regulating the practice of medicine, Harding v. People, 10 Colo. 387; an act regulating the sale or disposal of opium and prohibiting the keeping of places of resort for smoking or otherwise using opium, State v. Ah Sam, 15 Nev. 27: 37 Am. Rep. 454; an act to regulate conditional sales of personal property, providing for filing, and making a violation of the act a misdemeanor. Weil v. State, 46 Ohio St. 450.

1. Elections.-Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 64, citing Sedgw. Stat. and Const. L. 521, n.

An act providing for the registration of voters, and prescribing the use to be made of the registration list, embraces but one subject. Eureka v. Davis, 21 Kan. 57S.

2. Insurance. Skinner v. Wilhelm, 63 Mich. 568. An act providing for the incorporation of mutual fire insurance companies, defining their powers and duties, and repealing prior acts upon the same subject, contains but one subject. Tolford v. Church, 66 Mich. 431. 3. Intoxicating Liquors. State v. Haas (N. Dak. 1891), 50 N. W. Rep. 254, citing Hronek v. People, 134 II. 139; 23 Am. St. Rep. 652; Evansville v. Bayard, 39 Ind. 450; Ramagnano v. Crook, 85 Ala. 226; Fahey v. State, 27 Tex. App. 146; 11 Am. St. Rep. 182; Hart v. Judge, 50 N. J. L. 585; Easton, etc., R. Co. v. Central R. Co., 52 N. J. L. 267; State v. Madson, 43 Minn. 438; People v. Haug (Mich. ¡SS8), 37 N. W. Rep. 21.

An act prohibiting the sale and 23 C. of L.-18

273

manufacture of intoxicating liquors and providing for the punishment of an intoxicated person, embraces but one subject. State v. Barrett, 27 Kan. 213. So also an act prohibiting all sophistication and adulteration of wines and intoxicating liquors, and to prevent fraud in the manufacture and sale thereof. Ex parte Kohler, 74 Cal. 38.

In Fahey v. State, 27 Tex. App. 158; 11 Am. St. Rep. 182, it was held that an act levying an occupation tax, and providing for issuance of a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors, did not contain more than one subject, and was therefore valid; and the court observed, that if there were but one subject in the act, the fact that the act had more than one object would not render it obnoxious to the constitution.

An act prohibiting the sale of liquors within a specified distance from two churches, situated in different counties, embraces but one subject. Block v. State, 66 Ala. 493.

4. Employes; Laborers; Mechanic's Liens.-An act for the relief of laborers and employés containing a clause exempting wages from garnishee process, embraces but one subject. Farley v. Dowe, 5 Ala. 326. So also an act giving laborers and material-men a lien upon a railway for materials furnished and labor performed on such railway. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Frey, 30 Neb. 790.

Creating a mechanic's lien, and providing that a person furnishing materials for a building on the land of a married woman, who has not signed a building contract, may remove the materials furnished if she refuses to recog