The Rock Island daily Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1872-1873, 1873-05-15

thereby in part lost. They did extend il
by this act and It protected him against
that loss, otherwise inevitable from a state
OF things existing without fault on his part.
without in the slightest degree affecting the
rights Of any other person. That is Just
the character and operation of a private
law. This was strictly such. and really
for relief in the proper and parliamentary
sense OF the term and being for nothing
more or else the title was as broad as the
Act and altogether true.
IL 1t is void for the reason suggested
then also is every private Act for relief
passed or conceivable under the Constitu-
ton Of lS4s, and this familiar title Is abso-
lutely forbidden.
cannot presume that such was the
design of that provision. The construction
practically given to it by the Legislative
and Executive departments of the Govern
ment, by the passage and approval Of
numerous Acts, similarly entitled, at every
Session since its adoption, is against it
The supreme Court in The People VS..
MelleH, 80 III. 1873, say we have always
given the most liberal construction TO this
provision for the purpose Of sEstaining
private or local laws, agreeing in this
view with the Courts of all the States
which have adopted it Cooley on Constl
Limitations, p. TAG and note). No case
has been cited in which an Act has been
held void on account Of such a title, but
in New York whose Constitution contained
the same provision an Act entitled can
Act for the relief of the creditors of The
Lockport Il Niagara Falls r. r. Co" was
sustained. Mosier VS.. Hilton, Is Barb.
657. A glance at the Private Laws" Of
this State passed since lS4S will show how
disastrous would be contrary ruling here.
But Acts have been passed Of q char
acter different from the one under consid-
GRAFTON though with similar title. The
same section of the Constitution which
contained this prohibition authorized the
Legislature in each House, by a three
fourths vote to Suspend the Rule requir-
ing every Blu to be read three times.
This Suspension would be most likely to
take place in the case of Bills appearing
from the reading Of their titles to be pri-
vate Bills, in which for that reason the
members generally would have no interest
Advantage therefore was or might have
been taken Of the common understanding
OF the meaning Of their titles as denoting
bills Of that character, to introduce into
them provisions affecting the rights Of
particular persons other than those named
in the title or Of the people in general
This was the danger which this prohibition
was designed to avert So far as the Bill
might be for anything else than the relief
of the party named the subject would not
be expressed in the title To that extent
the title would be false and delusive, and
in my Judgment such Acts and such only
are prohibited.
For this reason am Of opinion that
the Act of lS49 referred TO was not I'M
constitutional That of 1857 falls within
the same reasons, and if it is valid do
not understand that any objection is raised
to that of 1867 which was entitled AN
Act 10 amend An Act entitled An Act for
the relief of the heirs and assignees Of John |
Wilson, deceased"
Continued on fourth page