Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-05-20

State IS. Tresdwell-Indic'm ent for keep
ing q gsminghou-e.
The defendant moves to qussh the indict-
nlent, because 1t charges that he keeps said
house feloniously. He claims that the re-
cent act OF the Legislature, Furnishing rs
ielons THAT Is by confinement in the peni-
tentisryl the keepers of such houses, is un-
constitutional and, therefore, void.
The constitution says that mo bill shall
become law which embraces more than one
subject, that eubject to be expressed in the
title" History snd judicial interpretation
sgree that the object of this provision was 10
prevent frauds beng prac.Ic,d in ltgisis-
lures. II had long been the case that laws,
having one thing their title, had quite
different thing as their object. By this
means the honest, but unwary, are caught
Another reason for the provision was that a
bill frequently had one praiseworthy subject
but several others quite the reverse in
lis body, and ye. the vote bad TO be on the
whole.
Is the act OF last March in conflict with
this Object or the literal reading Of this Sc
ton? As / read it, il has but one purpose,
and that is 10 enlarge the punishment which
shall be imposed on those engaged in the
business of keeping houses, tables, or in
struments for gambling. If this ia its only
object it merely remains to see if "the sub
ject is expressed in the TILE" OF course
nothing more than u substantial ompliancs
with this constitutional provision is re-
quired. III the whole subject OF the act had
to be expressed in the title we would be
involved in The absurdity of putting every
thing In this part and repeating il in the
body OF the statute. / think the objection
is met in the present law. An act which
says in its title it increases the punishmt NJ
for those who are engaged in keeping
gaming halls or houses may be fairly held to
embrace keepers of gaming tables or en-
ployes.
1t is insisted, however, that the act is
void ON another ground, namely, that it is
| in conflict with the constitutional provision
which says: "All acts which repeal, revive
or amend former laws shall rscite, in their
caption otherwise, the title or substance
OF the law repealed, revived or amended"
/ do not concur in this view. 1t seems
TO Inc that a law which merely increases
the character of puni,hment for an offense
| already on the statute books, is no such re-
| peal as the constitution refers TO. Counsel
| then argue that, even II this be true, the
act at least revives a former law. Again |
differ. The fact that some fifty years ago
| there was a statute Furnishing gambling IS
felony, and that now the Legislature has
passed similar law, is no revival of the
| old statute.
1t is ssid by counsel that ss the act of 1888
increases the character of the punishment, it
| should be strictly construed. This is true In
a general sense, but not as counsel apply it.
OF course, every iutendment is in favor OF
the Legislature patsipg constitutional stat
uies, and courts should enter on an investi-
CATION as 10 whether such is the case with
| this presumption in favor OF the particu ar
law. 1t is also insisted that the law is OPP
posed to public policy, and that the punish
ment under the former statutes is sufficiently
severe. With this have nothing to do. 1t
| lie my duty TO enforce what find enacted as
law by the Legislature when such enactment
is not void by reason If being in conflict with
the constitution, which is both Legislatures
| and courts.
| Holding these views, override the motion
Of defendants 10 qnash the indictment, and
order that he plead to the same and 90 to
! trial