St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-05-29
,egard the prior and proper amendatory SEQ

L
tons, for they
CONTAIN NOTHING
touching or affecting the provisions of the
law of 1877, nor any which suggest neces-
slty. reason or occasion for its repeal. In all
essential particulars that part of tho act
amendatory OF the law of 1878 and
the section repealing that Of 1877 stand
apart and related to each other
only as the act amended and the act repealed
were related to each other: thar is, they beth
concern the general subject of tax proceed
ings. Therefore the provisions of this act
which are amendatory of the law of 1878 had
no effect to render appropriate this title as
expressive of the subject of the section re-
pealing the law of 1877. AS to that the title
is as clearly insufficient as it would have been
If the whole body of the act had consisted
only of this declared repeal of the law differ
ent from that referred to in the title.
The respondent asserts a proposition as
a rule of determination which
has been laid down in some
decided cases cited in his brief and which II
applied without qualification would perhaps
support the enactment. IT may be thus ex-
pressed: In an amendatory act, entitled as
such, the title not being restrictive in Its
terms, may be embraced any legislation
which might have been enacted in the origi-
mai law under its title. From the very nature
of the case il is difficult If not impossible, to
lay down any general rule by the application
af which questions like that under consdera-
ton can be determined. 1t must neces-
sarily be considered in each case what
is the real subject of the enactment
In question, and whether it is fairly expressed
in the title, n liberal rather than a strict
rule of construction in favor of the law be-
Ing always observed. IL the Judgment
formed upon such q consideration of the
case is opposed to the results of the appli-
cations of what Is suggested as a general rule
determination
well consider whether there be or not some
defect in the rule. Reflection will satisfy
the mind that such a rule as is here sug-
gested cannot be adopted, at least without
important qualification. An amenda-
tory law is for the amendment, not
of what might have been enacted
under the title of the original statute
but of what was enacted; not of what the
original law might have been, but of what it
was. Hence the sufficlency of the title of an
act merely declared to be amendatory of a
prior law to justify the legislation which may
be enacted under it, depends not alone upon
the fact that the title of the original act was
30 comprehensive that the legislation in ques-
lion might have been properly enacted in
such prior law, but it depends also upon the
nature and extent of the prior enactment, to
amend which is the declared purpose or SUBJ
5ect of the later act. This seems self-evident,
but to test the correctness of the rule iu-
voked let US apply it to supposable cases.
We will assume that under the title of the
law OF 1878
IAN acr to provide for the assessment and
collection of taxes" The only legislation
adopted had been change in the prior law
in respect to the time of meeting of the state
board of equalization or Of the manner of
publishing
THE DELINQUENT LIST.
Now, suppose later act, declared in its
title to be amendatory of that act, to consist
rhaR rcf fba,,
by prescribing different time for the meeting
OF the state board or a different manner
OF publishing the delinquent list. The second
section we will suppose simply declares the
repeal of section two, Of the law OF 1873,
Especial laws, chapter..1 authorizingirailroad
corporations to adopt the scheme of SUBJ
Situted taxation in that act provided; or let
me supposed second section declare the re-
peal OF law of 1877, (chapter 1867 which re-
CURED an annual return by railroad corpora
tions of lands sold, from their untaxable
land grant so that the same might be prop
erly subjected to taxation. Or again, let the
supposed second section be like that now in
question, simply the repeal Of the act of 1877
respecting the giving of notice of the expira-
ton of the period for redemptior; or let US
suppose that the so-called amendatory act
has consisted only of such repeal of the law
OF 1877. In such cases the mind is at once
Impressed with the incongruity between
the subject Of the act as expressed
in its title and the enactment under it. Yet
the principle relied upon by the respondent
would sustain such legislation because it
might have been adopted under the title of
the original law. The fault in TIE asserted
rule is that it does not regard the nature and
extent Of the original enactment which it is
the declared purpose of the latter act to
amend, but only the title of it, it rests upon
the assumption that the enact
ment was as comprehensive as
under its title it might have been.
We think it cannot be relied upon to aid in
the determination of such cases, and, if recog-
nized rs a rule without qualification, that it
would open way to the accomplishment of
the very evilswhich the constitutional pro-
vision was intended to prevent. The re-
spondent suggests as another reason in favor
Of the constitntlonality of this law, or rather
as test of its constitutionality, this: In this
act of 1881, entitled as it is, the legis-
lature might have made such pro-
visions amendatory of the law of
1878, might have adopted such affirmative
legislation as would have repealed by neces-
sary implication section 81 of the act of 1877
If this repeal might have been thus effected
indirectly, why may the same thing not have
been done directly and by an express declara-
ton of repeal. This suggestion is plausible,
but it cannot be recognized as having force
when thoughtfully considered. 1t may be
conceded that such amendatory legislation
would have been permissible, and that the
result, the repeal by implication
OF the law of 1877 need not have been ex-
pressed in the title. But why this is so; why
such an enactment would not violate the
clause of the constitution under considera-
ton, while
THE EXPRESS REPEAL
in this case does violate it may be readily
stated. The general and inquisitorial power
Of the legislature to enact laws and to amend
prior laws is attended by the necessary Incl
dent and consequence of the sometimes re-
sulting abrogation of other laws incompatible
with that enacted. In order that the later
act may have effect and be a law, whatever
Is necessarily inconsistent with it must give
way. In such case the proper subject of
the Later act will be found in the legislation
which is embodied in it; and it is a Lompli-
ance with the constitutional requirement if
that subject is sufficiently expressed
in the title of the act. The re-
sultng repeal of other statutes inconsistent
with that law is q mere necessary incident
and consequence of the exercise of the legis-
lative power to enact the laws and it has not
been required by the constitution that the
title of an act shall disclose such conse-
quences or refer to appeals effected by inn
plication OF law. But where the purpose of
an Observation-Disclosures as to whole act or
to a single section-is not merely to
create a new law or to amend nm
existing law, but only to repeal statute not
otherwise sought to be affected by the enact
ment, such repeal is essentially the subject.
or a subject of the act and by tive terms of
the constitution it is required that such sub
ject shall be expressed in the title. From
considerations which have been above set
forth it seems plain to us that
such was the case with respect to
section 20 of the act of 1881 and we
feel no doubt that the title of the act in no
manner expressed or suggested the subj ect of
what must be regarded as an enactment dis
tinct from all else that was sought to he se-
compiished by this law, that is, the repeal Of
the act of 1877. The case of Tingue vs.. Viii
lage of Port Chester, recently decided in the
court of appeals of New York and New
Hampshire Rep 525, presented the question
of the constituhonality of an amendatory
act under circumstances similar to those
which we have been considering. The village
of Port Chester had been incorporated by leg
islative enactment in 1868; the charter was
amended in 1875; by chapter 227 Of the laws
of 1877, authority was given to to make re-as-
sessments for local improvements when the
original assessments should be lin the future)
set aside as illegal. By an act of 1875
9TH