The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1874-07-24
priations of public money, as dssignates

prlatlons OF pubilc money, as deslgnatee
! the, officer on 9 whose reputation the ap-
preparations shall be paid, is void. sa-
In legislative bodies, the connection Of
! different measures having no relstion ia
each other, in, one bill, in order to unite
members of the legislature who favored
either, in support Of all, was, before the
adoption of the constitutional provision
just quoted a serious evil great
! ly needing correction. The failure
to indicate g linio .theioftitle of the
bill the d, object, intended = to be
accomplished BY the Legislation, especially
\ when the bill was not read fuzzy, but
merely by its title, the result of which
was, that the members who did not eI-
| anime its contents, often voted on it
without knowledge of its object, was
likewise such an evh.nanil q ,aa
Provisions similar to those of the pres
ent constitution Just quoted, except the
qualification as to acts, q part but not all,
the objects of which are expressed in the
title, were adopted in Virginia. as q part
| of the Constitution that took effect in
1852; and the first Of them was adopted
| in the Constitution of this State that took
effect in 1868. .. ..G -Iua t.a.
These provisions are we'll adapted to
| the correction of the evils at which they
| are aimed but whether, if that which
requires the object of an act to be ex-
pressed in the title be strictly construed,
it will not produce greater evil, is ques-
ton for careful and deliberate considera-
ton. We do not extend this suggestion
to the provision which directs that no act
thereafter passed shall embrace more
than one object, because, as we
will notice the qualification of that pro-
vision in the present constitution, averts
the mischief it might otherwise accom-
plish. The detail of preparing and pass
ing separate act for every object of
legislation is so distasteful to all law max
ers: the practical discrimination between
what are elements or incidents of the
substantive object of an act, and what are
materially different objects, is SO perple1-
ing, and the accurate expression of the
object of an act in the few words which
convenience rs we'll Is immemorial usage
has allowed to the title, is so difficult, ev-
en to the most competent and careful leg
islators, that in many acts heretofore pass
ed, N exact compliance has not boen, and
in others hereafter passed. we fear, will
not be attained. These provisions, con-
templated in connection with the i'm
perfect compliance with their commands
in Virginia and this State since their
adoption, have been the occasion of
much embarrassment to Legislators
and jurists, and of grave
apprehensions to citizens interest
ed in the efficacy of statutes and the GER
tainty of the laws.
The restriction in the present constitu-
ton, of these provisions to acts thereafter
passed, and the displacement ofthe form
err constitution by the new one, may re-
lieve previous legislation from the en-
barrassment of such provisions in former
constitutions except so far as under their
operation rights may have vested. But
this we do not now consider.
The provision in this constitution, in
effect, that if any object shall be embrace
ed in All act that is not expressed in the
title. the act shall be void rs to such OBJ
iect-but rs to that Only-implics the
important principle that the prohibition
to embrace more than one object in the
same act, is merely directory; and that
though an act embraces several objects,
if all or any of them be expressed in the
title, the act, otherwise properly passed,
shall be valid rs to the objects expressed.
In two States having in their
constitutions provision that no
law shall embrace more than one
subject, and that this shall be expressed
in the title, the Courts have held, in effect,
that the provision was merely directory
to the members of the Legislature, and
operative on their consciences; and that
the failure to comply with it did not i'm
pair the validity of the legislative act.
Such construction of the provision in the
Constitution of this State is excluded by
the provision that the act shall be void
only lis to so much as shall not be en-
pressed in the title. But the action of
these Courts shows that this apprehcn-
sion of mischief from these provisions
was so strong as to influence them to dis
regard the important provision generally
recognized and applied, that whatever is
prohibited by Constitution, if done, is
Intellectual.
In number of States having provi-
Sions exactly or substantially similar to
our own, on that subject, the Courts have
construed them literally, so us to sustain
the validity of the statutes. In this
State the late Supreme Court of Appeals,
consisting of three Judges, one of whom
dissenting, in late case, construed the pro-
vision relative to the title, more inimical-
~ to the validity of statutes impugned
on this account, than any other court
whose action on the subject We have seen.
But that case-if the construction adopt
ed by the majority of the court be law
is not close enough in lis analogy to this
to furnish precedent for its decision.
The question whether the object of an
act is expressed in the title, is determin
ed by the comparison of the act and the
title, and is not influenced by any former
law which the latter act, if valid, repeats
expressly or by implication.
Without venturing to declare any gem
eral rule, or suggest any general principle
as to the precision or completeness with
which, under the provision in question,
the object of All act should be expressed
in the title, We may say with propriety,
that, in our opinion, while the most lib
eral construction favorable to the validity
of legislation, which the language admits
will be sufficient to suppress the evil at
which it is aimed, such construction will
be most conducive to the quiet and Secu-
rity of rights, which the law ought, rs far
as practicable, to effectuatc. And we will
add, rs a proposition, that will more than
control the decision Of the question now
in consideration, that when the principal
object Of nm act is expressed in the title,
and the act embraces with such principal
object, other auxiliary objects, the act,
if not otherwise objectionable, is valid,
not only as to the principal but likewise
as to the auxiliary objects.
\ title is generally brief statement
Of the subject of the act. If, under the
Constitutional provision, there be any