The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1878-03-20
THE VAGRANcY ACT.
The Supreme Court Decides It for the Most
Part to be Constitutional.
The Provisions Of the Act Properly Embraced
In the Title-Pimps Not Liable by
Statute NJ Arrest With
out Warrant.

following decision touching the yagrancy
act. holding it to be constitutional:
State of Indiana vs. Hold Newton. From
the Parke c. c. Perkins, ].
The following Indictment for an offeHse
created by the second section of the act of
March 15 1877. defining yagrancy, etc, was
returned in the Parke circuit court:
State Of Indiana VS.. He'd Newton. Indict-
ment for exhibition of gamblers implements.
The grand jurors Of Parke county,
In the state of Indiana, good and
lawful men, duly and legally efnpanueIed,
charged, affirmed and sworn in the Farke cir
cult court OF said state, at the October term for
the year 1871, to inquire into felonies and GER
tain misdemeanors in and for the body OF said
county of PaTke, in the name and by the au-
thority of the state of Indiana, on their oaths
| and affirmations, present that one Hoi New
ton late OF said county, on the 29.h day of
August, A. ID. 1871 at said county and state
aforesaid, was then and there unlawfully the
exhibitor of certain gamblers Implements
viz, dice'boX and dice needed in playing the
game of chuc<-a-luck, contrary to the form OF
ana 10 I seen cases mace and provided
OF Indiana. DAVID 4. ROACH,
Prosecuting At orney.
A motion to quash the indictment was
sustained on the ground that said second
section was not embraced IN the title of the
act.
This is the title:
An act defining vagrancy and other offences
therein specified, providing penalties, author
izing arrests OF suspected persons without war
III.
authorizing search of places where unlawful
( practices are carried on, aud arrest of inmates
without warrant, and comforting certain pow
| ers and jurisdiction on policemen and other
peace officers, mayors and Justices declaring it
cumulative statute, and emergency, and con-
tanning other provisions pertinent to the sub
ject matter ofthe act.
The second and fourteenth sections of the
I act follow:
Section 2. Any male or female person, who
shall be the keeper or proprietor, or exhibitor
! plements, or who shall be an assistant or at
| tendant, on any gaming table or apparatus,
or IN any gambling house, shall be deemed "a
section Il. This act shall not be construed TO
! repeal any other statute unless they clearly
conflict, but as cumulative to other statutes
/ lating to tho same subjects.
| A general summary of the act, which il
may be well to have in view, is as follows:
Section one defines and provides for
! the punishment of vagrancy. Section
/ three defines professional gambler. Sec
ton four defines pigeon dropper. Sec.
/ ton five defines female prostitute
Section six defines pinip. Section seven
/ authorizes the arrest without warrant, OF
/ any person guilty under the second third
/ fourth and fifth sections of the act, but IL
} does not authorize the arrest of pimp
/ without warrant. An exception is virtually
made in his case. Section eight prescribes
\ the punishment OF vagrant; section nine o {,
gambler or professional gambler; section
! ten of pigeon droppeT; section eleven of a
| prostitute; section twelve of pimp. Sec
| ton thirteen authorizes visitation by the
police of suspected gambling houses and
houses of prostitution, the seizure aud de
tention OF gambling apparatus, and the ar
rest of the persons. etc. Section fifteen de
clares an emergency.
1t is Ordained by the constitution of the
state, article section 10, that every act shall
embrace but one subject and matters properly
connected Herewith, which subject shall
be expressed in the title. But if amy subject
shall be embraced in an act which shall not
he expressed in the title. such act shall be
void only as TO so much thereof rs shall not
be expressed ir the title" The first question
is, what is the subject OF the act the title 10
which is copied abOve2 The second is. is
the matter OF section two OF said act expressed
in the title thereto, or properly connected
with the subject expressed therein? The
subject of the act is not definitely, but is
substantially, expressed in the title. The
title expresses that the act is one defining
vagrancy and other offsnses therein spec
tied, providing penalties" etc, and con-
tanning other provisions pertinent 10 the
subject matter of the act" The subject of
the act, then, IS the defining OF and provid-
ing for the punishment of the offences
enumerated in the act, all of which offences
are misdemeanors.
The subject of the act, therefore, expressed
substantially in the title is, the defining and
providing for the punishment or certain
misdemeanors.
The subject matter. of all the sections of
the act is embraced by the title, and all the
provisions in said sections for securing the
punishment of the offences defined in the
act, are properly connected Herewith.
(Y Dung VS.. the state, AZ Ind, 1907. ard cases
cited of the correctness of these PROPOSE
tions we haze no doubt. But some of the
r -.
ishment Of offenders are claimed 10 be un-
constitutional: and the question is, should
they be so, would the fact render the entire
act invalid? If so, the present prosecution
could not be sustained. statute may be
unconstitutional in part without invalidat-
ing the remainder. Or the unconstitutional
part may be so material as 10 render the
whole act void. CLARK VS.. Ellis, Blackf, 8;
Wishniener VS.. the state IL Ind, 1881
An examination of the act in question
satisfies that the portions of it claimed
to be unconstitutional may be .elimi-
mated and still leave a complete and
operative enactment. Thia being So the
present prosecution was legal, and the in
allotment should not have been quasheds
because none of the provisions claimed to
be unconstitutional were scted upon IN the
prosecution thus far, ard would not neces-
sarily be in its continuance 10 hnal ter
mination. Ali that part OF the act creating
enforcing punishment may not be. But the 4
prosecution In this case was instituted, con-
Quoted under and 10 accordance with the
provisions of the code of criminal pleading
and practice in force prior TO the
enactment of the statute Of March Is, 1877,
and still IN force for that act declares that
''it shall not be construed to repeal any
other statute, unless they clearly conflict
butas cumulative 10 other statutes relative
10 the same subiects''-so that the entire
system of prosecuting criminal offences
heretofore existing, still exists, supplement-
ed by few provisions in the act of March
10, 1877, which, should they prove IN
constitutional. may be disused and stlll leave
ample provisions for the prosecution of the
offences created by said act. Arrest by war
rant is not prohibited by the act of March,
supra, nor is trial by jury. while the act
expressly continues in force laws authorizing
both.
The following sections of the constitution,
drawn from Magma Charta, are those sup
posed 10 be violated by some of the proyis-
of tha aof Of March 1877