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

officer and boards by whom such powers c
and duties should be exercised, and mat t
ters of like nature. It IS t
quite apparent that nothing of g
this character was expressed or S
verbally indicated in the title of the act. 4
Nor WASH S purpose declared to be the 4
creation of county governments and pre-.
scrbing rules and regulations In regard
thereto. The court, in adverting to this
act, says sit is true that this act IN the |
technical sense does embrace more than {
one subject, and but one is expressed in
its title, yet so intimately blended are
they in the popular understanding and so
inseparable by general custom and adop-
ton, that although the technical sense
may bring it within the letter of the con-
stitution. it leaves it entirely without the
spirit. There is no attempt at fraud, or
the Interpolation Of matter foreign to
the subject expressed in the title, but an
honest effort to create system OF
town, and though the town, county
government, similar to that of other
States" and on this ground the act was
sustained and its title held to be suflcl-
entity specific and suggestive OF its Sari'
Gus objects and provisions to meet the
constitutional requirements. Again, this
matter was before this Court in the case
OF Atkinson vs.. Duffy, Is Mimi. IS. when
the question presented was whether
| section embodied in law entitled IAN
act to regulate the foreclosure of real es-
tate" which authorized the mort gagor,
by an instrument in writing, executed at
the time of his giving the mortgage TO
waive his right of redemption. strictly
speaking, it will hardly be claimed that
rule pres cribing what kind Of mortgage
contract party may make is a reeula-
ton Of the mode and manner III when
such contract shall be foTeeIosed.
And vet the Court held the title IN
that case sufficiently expressive and IN
dicative Of the subject Of the act to cover
the provision "within the liberal rules
which it is indispensable to apply IN the
construction Of the constitutional pro
vision on this subject
In decitnhg that case the Court cites ap
proyingly the rule as stated, IN Stewart
VS.. Kinsel.a, IA Mimi, 52i. and say, ''as
the regulation Of the right of redemption
and cf the right to waive redemption to
certain extent, gives character TO ana De-
d ternnes the effect Of the sale, 1t Is no
great stretch Of language to speak OF the
rules prescribed in regard to them as re 3
ulatng the foreclosure.
: The rule Of construction as established
: bv these cases is still unquesuoned IN
this Court. and must if adhered to be de-
: cisive of the case now before 1t, under
such rule as exemplihed by these cases,
: If the Legislature is fairly appraised OF
S the general character Of an enactment
J. by the subject as expressed IN the title,
:. and all it's provisions have just and
y proper reference thereto, and are such as
J, by The nature of the SUBJECT so indicated
i are manifestly appropriate in that con-
Il rection and as might reasonably be
e looked for in a measure of such char
l. acter then the requirement OF the con
II stitution is complied with.
J. It matters not that the act embraces
n technically more than one SUBJECT one
y of which is only expressed in the title, a
t. was the case. in the township organization
Of Supervisors Ramsey county VS.. heenen
r, supral. so that they are not foreign an.
o. ex,raueons to each other but 'blend
:. together in the common purpose evident
% Iy sought to b, accomplished by the law
n Neithe. is it important that all the vari
ous objects of an act be expressly state'
or in its title, nor that the act itself indicat
r objects other than so ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
IS they arc not at variance with the one ;
p EXPRESSED. but are consonant therewltf
: Most laws have several objects IN We"
en- All criminal legislation has reference.
a ought to have. not only to the dehnitlo
nd of The ofiense aud the punishment oil IN
of offender, but the suppression
ot the crime and the reformation oil II
10 criminal Yet an express ndi ,ation
nd one only Of these objects IN the title
a an act. would not. therefore, make 1t VI
or. constitutional. Besides the subject
is the &C, and not the object had in vie
pie by its enactment, as is the case IN som
VS.. Of the States, is what is required by tn
clause Of our constitution.
in The law in question, as expressed
ich its title, wss one Ito establish fund !
rt, the foundation and maintenance OF
the ASYLUM for inebriates.
tu- How this was to be done. by VII
der means the fund was to be create
through the exercise of what particul
t is powsr, whether the taxing, police or sol
I'M other. is not so expressly indicate
wv neither Is tutIc IA
hat tional provision requiring 1t.
hip It is not denied but that all the p
RITZ visions of the Law are appropriately ada
:, if ed to the creation of the fund for
nty purpose indicated.
'eFs Il is claimed. however, that as the
,eIs pressed object was to create func'
oW- Il must be inferred that it was to De a.
oe through the exercise of the power oil !.
u l alton for revenue purposes alone. I
TINS does rot follow. provided It might
~ raised by the legitimate exercise Oh
was police power in regulating the business
n oil selling liquor. and Of this there can Be
ales doubt. in view Of the uniform curren
Inc authority upon that matter
~, It can hardly be contended that an
snh. professedly for the purpose OF regula
SUI SUI this traffic that should require rs
. n,.a dition of its prosecution the procur q
ca.a a license therefor by the payment OF :