The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-03-13
BELL-PUNCH LAW.
The ConstitutionaIity OF The Law be-
cided by the Court OF Appeals.

cided by the Court OF Appeals.
Frank II. Dean, Collector, etc., vs.. Ed
ward Reinecke From Galveston county.
This appeal brings before us for cossidera'
ton and decision the constitutionality Of an
act Of the Legislature Of the State of Texas,
entitled "An act TO provide for the levy and
collection of an occupation tax on the sale
Of spirituous, vinous and malt liquors, in
quantities less than quart, and to make an
appropriation TO carry the same into effect"
approved April 3, 1870, and commonly des-
ignated as the "bell-punch law" The par
ticular grounds upon which IL is commended
by appellee that tho act is unconstitutional
are, briefly stated, as follows:
!. Because the act contains more than one
subjectin this:
(a,) 1t levies tax for the use of the State.
(b.) IL evies tax for the use of counties
(c) 1t prohibits the levy of II tax on the
same subject by the County Commissioners
court.
(d) 1t provides for and regulates the levy
and collection of taxes by the cities and
towns within the State.
2. Because the subject of the act is not ex-
pressed in its title; the subjects of tho act be-
ing as stated above, and not being expressed
in its title.
8. Because the act undertakes to provide
for the levy and collection of u tax OH prop
erty without reference to its value.
d. Because the act levies u tax which, as an
occupation tax, is not equal and uniform
upon the same class of subjects.
B. Because the act, in undertaking to pro-
vide for the levy and collection Of tax for
the use OF the countless and in prohibiting
the collection of tax on the same subject
by the counties, usurps the powers and
duties of the Commissioners courts of the
several counties in respect to the manage
ment and control of the business and affairs
OF their respective counties under the const-
tuition and laws; and is repugnant to the an
cient and well established political institu-
tions of the State, by which the people of
the several counties are entitled to be taxed
for county purposes by the immediate repre-
sentatives Of the respective counties, to-wit:
the Commissioners courts, and by no other
authority.
g. That said statute requires citizens carry
ing on lawful business to pay the tax col.
lector annually pretended rent or hire for
machines to be employed for the exclusive
use of the government; said annual rent oil
hire being greatly in excess of the actual cost
or value of such machines and no provision
being made for its payment over by the taA
collector into the treasury of the State.
Other grounds of constitutional objection
appear in the pleadings Of appellee in the
court below, but MS they have not been in
sisted upon in this court, they will not be dis
cussed.
The purpose and scope of that provision
In our State constitution which requires thai
no bill, with certain exceptions, shall contain
more than one subject, which shall BIO ex
pressed in its title, can not at this day be /
matter for conjecture or controversy. Since
the adoption of our first State constitution
which, together with subsequent constitu
tons, down to that under which we now live
contained provision substantially, though
not altogether similar; the meaning and con
struction of the provision have been maturely
considered and determined by the courts
and are now as definitely ascertained as nd
Indication and exposition can make them
cannon & Hemphil, Tex, POS; Parker vs.
Parker, 10 Tex, Sc; Robinson vs.. State. Il
Tex, 312; Tadlock VS.. Eccles, 20 Tex, 1872
State vs.. Shade, Al Tex, 404; Breen VS.. II. 8
p. r. X. Co., "A Tex, 302 Davey VS.. Gal
weston Co., As Tex, POI; Gid lings vs. Sar
Antonio, AZ Tex, 54S; Holden vs.. State,
Ut. App, 225; Hasselmeyer VS.. State, ib., 600
ex parte Mabry, 8 Ct. App, 80; English vs.
State, Ct App, I'LL The purposes in
tended to be effected by this section were Il
prevent the incorporation into one bill pro
visions of nature totally diverse, an(
without necessary connection, with n view Il
effect general combination of the particular
friends Of each measure, and thereby secur,
their enactment, when some or all of then
would likely fail of becoming laws if lett tC
stand upon their own merits; and also thu
entrapping of legislators into the support o.
bill into which, by dexterous management
some insidious provision had been inserted o.
which the title gave no intimation. In con
STRUNG the provision, therefore, courts have
uniformly refused 10 adopt strict anC
literal construction, which would inevitabl,
tend to the serious embarrassment of legisla
ton, and have uniformly sustained legisa
tion, when the several provisions of the ac
are fairly indicated in the general object al
stated in the title, under rule adopted b,
themselves, giving to the section broad anc
liberal construction. The general purpose
of the provision is fully accomplished wher
law has but one general object which II
fairly indicated by lie title, and the goneralit,
Of the title is not objectionable So long as i
is not made a cover to legislation, incongru
Gus in itself, and which, by no fair intend
ment, can be considered as having necessary
or proper connection. [Breen Va. I. & T
X. r. Co, A Tex, 302; Giddings vs. Sar
Antonio, AZ Tex, 54s; ex parte Mabry, 5 CT
App, %; X II. vs. Potts, Ind, 681; Peopl.
v, Briggs, 80 n. T., 55s; Cooley Cons. Lin.
1h-a45