The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1875-12-16

It could not be questioned but that a t
reasonable sum imposed in the way OF an '
to the state against the ex-
pense of maintaining police force to SUI G
pervise the conduct OF those engaged In $
the business, and to guard against the
disorders and infractions Of law occa- :
stoned by its prosecution would be lie
Ultimate exercise of the police power
and not open to the objection
that it was tax for the purpose OF rev.
enue and therefore unconstitutional. Re-
claiming the ineb1iate. restoring him to
society, prepared again to discharge the
duties Of citizenship, equally promotes
the public welfare and tends to the &C
complishment of like beneficial results.
and it is difficult to see wherein the i'm
position of reasonable licence fee would
be any the less proper exercise OF this
power in the one case than in the other.
The purpose to which the license fund
created by the act IS designated is more |
consonant to the idea of regulating the
traffic and preventing its evils than is the |
case under the general license law, which
devotes the fees received to common
school purposes, and we are not aware
agains. that law on that account.
In the case Of Coulter VS.. the City OF
St. Paul (supra) this court upheld an
ordinance regulating and licensing butch
ers' shops, ETC., which fixed the license at
5000, and sustained the action OF the
Legislature in giving to the Common
Council the power of prescribing what
sum should be paid for each such license
provided it was not less than tive nor
more than five hundred dollars, and III
regard to the point made in that case,
that such license fee was for
the purpose of a revenue,
the court observed that st ewas not at
all important whether the license pro-
duced a revenue to the city or not. 50
in the City Of Rochester VS.. upham 18th
Mimi l05, 1.-The licensing and the reguia'
ZION Of the dangerous traffic in intoxlca-
ting liquors vas recognized aid APP
proved as san almost universal mode 0,
exercising the police power, and 1.-THE
obiect,o, that the license fee was uEcon-
stitu,ional as imposing an unequal tax
was declared to be fully met by the con-
sideration that the license was imposed,
not as tax, but as an incident, and IN
the opinion Of the law making power here
and elsewhere, "a just and reasonable IN
cidcnt OF the exercise CT the police
nower.' These eases are decisive OF the
present unless the law must fail by rea-
son Of its alleged defective title III no.
indicating with sufficient certainty It's
5 subject. which BY the constitution Is re-
auired to be expressed IN the title tSec.
G 81. Art. 4. Const1 The well known OBJ.
I iect of this section Of the constitution,
: which declares that mo law shall EN-
brace more than one subject, which sinai
he expressed in its title, vas to secure
S to every stinct act Of legislation sepa
y rate consideration apd decision. dependent
), solely upon ITS individual merits, bv pro
= hibiting the fraudulent insertion therein
), Of matters wholly foreign and in no way
It related to or connected with its subject
c and by preventing the combination
e different measures dlsslmilar III character
purposes and objects, but united to
gcther with the sole view. by this means
II of com ,ellng the requisite support t
y .ecure heir passage. supervisors Kan
u sew County VS.. Heenan, Mimi. o3o.)
X 1t was not intended, however, no
lie should it be so construed. as Ito embar
y, ras. legislation by making laws unncce'
o, sarily restrictive in their scope and OF
OF Grafton, and multiplying their number
ed This, together with the difficulty ofte
ne experienced in accurately stating IN
ny tile of the requisite brevity an
ys conc;seuess. the subject
es an enactment so as fully to express NJ
Sn only it's genera; character, but all its o.
m iccts and provisions, has necessarily an
ne universally induced the courts to adopt
n. liberal rule Of construction in conside
IN ING constitutional limitations upon iegl
ie- lative power of tins character. Poop
Use ~. Mahonev. Is Mich, ASH; Bright V
u Mccullough, p Ind. 223.
oy brief reference to the authorities
this State will show the extent to WIN
rs this rule has been carried by this coul
Ter and enable us the better to determine
ng question as To the effect OF the constit
DO t,onal requirement upon the law und
~ consideration.
The leading case upon this subject
~ tha, Of the Board Of Supervisors OF IA
pc sew county VS.. Heenan, Mimi, 5
i, 70 The title Of the act considered in tt
case was IAN act to provide for townsf
w organization 1t contained many al
=. cles some Of which related principally
@ sor not entirely. to the organization oil cour
vs. governments and the corporate pow
% and duties eff counties and the offlc
" and boards by whom such Pr
~. ers and duties sho Id
exercised. and matters OF like natu
~ - 1t is quite apparent that nothing OF
"a = character was expressed or verbally
H. dicated in the title of the act Nor
,sas its purpose declared to be the creation
~ county governments and prescribing r;
ana and regulations in regard thereto
.,,- Court, in adverting to this fact, sa
80. at is true that this act, in the tecnn
-, sense. does embrace more than one
~ iect. and but one is expressed IN wi
~ this rule has been carried by this q
~, and enable us the better to deterr
the question as to the effect of the col
,,;s, sutional requirement upon the Law VI
-. considers alton.
-, The leading case upon the sublec