The Richmond Indiana palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1854-1855, 1855-12-06


These as they relate 10 the section of our con-
stituton now under consideration are very
obvious. Under the old rule all sorts of in
congFuous subjects were frequently grouped
together in the same act. This sometimes
operated as a surprise. and even as fraud, on
legislators. and was serious mischief. The
remedy intended was 10 enable Legislators and
others 10 form a general idea OF the contents
OF the act by glance at It's title And this
remedy is as complete, if the subject may be
fairly collected from the title, as If 1t We're e1
pressed therein with logical precision. The
SUBJECTS equally plain whether it be express
I'd bv an enumeration of its parts, or by Its
logical announcement.
If the fore- going reasoning is wrong. a large
proportion OF our statutes must fal. Take,
rs ali example. our important revenue sta4ufe,
R :. iO5. lis tiile is an ''act 10 pros ide
fer the valuation and assess rnent of The TEAL
and personal property. and tie collection OF
taxes in tie S.ate OF Indlna: and for the
election of township assessors, ond prescri
bin-, the duties OF assessors, appraisers OF real
property. county treasurers and auditors, and
Of the treasurer aud auditor OF state Now
II the subject oi an act must be literally ex
pressed in the tide, and cannot be implied
merely. what is the subject. or rather what are
the subjects, of this act? Upon the reasonin.
of our opponents, it expresses at least three
subiects-l assessment and valuation; 2, the
election of certain officers; ;, their duties. So.
If the reasoning is ight. the title and the act,
as they express and embrace more than the
one subject, are void. The difficulty vanish
es, if we 90 little below the surface TO look
for the real subject. That real subject is in
deed implied, bat it is obvious enough 1t Is
general subject too; but it is right subject
/ It is the genus, Revenue. The acord itself is
not in the title, but the thing is there. And
nobody doubts the constitutionalIty of the
act.
Let US take another example from the most
important enactment in our Revised Statutes,
our Code of Civil Procedure. This act is
entitled san act to revise, simplify and abridge
the Rules Practice, Pleadings, and Forms in
Civil Cases in the Courts of this State--to
abolish distinct forms of action at law, and to
provide for the administration OF justice IN a
uniform mode of pleading and practice, with
out distinction between law and equity"
r. S. 81. The argument of our opponents
would apply 10 this act with all its force
Here, according to their argument, are several
subjects expressed in the title, and found in
the body Of the act too-simpifying. abolish
ing forms of action, destroying the distinction
between law ard equity. Are all these '.sub-
jeotsz' Yes. if the appellant is right. .Sed
qui hartt IN tUera haret IN corzice. Ii we look
a little under the letter and the bark Of the
thing, we shall find the one, true, constitu
tional subject plainly there. That subject is
CtUl Proced4re. The words, indeed, are
not in the title. but the thing is there. And
all the provisions OF the act 'matlers
properly connected with Civil Procedure.
And We believe that we may safely say there
is subject less comprehensive than Civil
Procedure. that save the act from this
constitutional objection.
Here it should be remarked. that in seeking
for the subject, the counsel for the appellant
reverse tie natural order of things They
look first to he tile, and indeed TO the tit =
alone, to find the subject" But as the COZ
stitution says every act (uet every tisle) sr;t.i
contain but one subject, which shall be eX-
pressed in lie lille, we should first look TO
the body Of the act to see what Is the sublec;
sleee Indicated, aud having a>ccrtained if
there. we should then inquire whether the
same subject can be collected with reasonable
certainty from tie title. Undoubtedly this iS
the natural ana logical course OF inquiry l.
Is. loo the coarse Of i-gisla ion. Iae body
& fhe h.i. i read by sections on three several
days ia each house. On lis ia~t reading lh-
vsae j. by yeas and nays. liter passage
the I.ie j. considered Aal. j; tie ia
nice or narrow rules ~ construction ~Eosld
be applied To tte tide. i, is no, required 70 be
read more than once. nor vo5ei on by Yeas
and nays. (See Art /, sec. 8 Of TIE con~.i-
gutioa,) And this view l. strengthened bv
tie consideration la. the 2i>t sec,icn Of the
same article torb:Js any revision or amend
ment of an act by mere reference to is tide
y that Is suppose ;o furnish a l!esi -u;l-i3n
sufficiently specific and certain. Pursuing
the natural order above indjca ed, all difficult
" to the title IN question yanishes. Look
ag 10 the body Of the ACT. we cannot fai! TO
see that It's ''subacL' i, ..the suppression of
intemperance." And having aScertained this
fact. We naturally turn to the tile If the
same subject appears there 70 be expressed
with reasonable cer-ainty. there is tie end Of
the controversy. And fortunately for us in
turning 70 the title OF the act under cousidera-
ton, We tind that the same subject. 50 unmis-
takablv In the body o. the act is clearly and
even literally expressed in the title No one
reading the i.lg can fail to see what il IS. Be-
yond al question: that subject is ''tle suppress
sion of intemperance," words with which the
tile closes, Some things are SO plain that no
argument can elucidate them. That the sub
Iec. Of this act Il 1.-The suppression Of intern
perance'' is one Of those plain things. We
shall not attempt TO make il palmer
But the counsel for the appellant insist that
the title in question is defective. as containing
more than one subjects Indeed. We under
stand them 10 argue that il contains three
the prohibition against manufacturing. the
prohibition against selling, and the suppression
of intemperance; and they may. with equal
reason. land perhaps do add fourth,
namely, TIE subjec: of repeal To this OBJ
lection we have several answers
In The first place. If the objection TO the
tile eSis.ed, (Which we deny.) it would
amount TO nothing. For the constitution
does not forbid the EXPRESSING Of Divers sub