Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1886-11-10

cident to the main object, and in no sense
that we can perceive, was il different
and distinct object from the main purpose
of the law.
THE oBJECT OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION,
Is, TO prevent the union of ineongruous
matters having no relation to each other.
1t IS to be found in the constitution of a
number of the States, and has received ju-
dicisl construction. We think upon a
close examination of the cases decided in
Indiana, Michigan, New York aud Illi-
nois upon similar constitutional provisions,
that il will be found that the courts hold,
that where the law embraces several OBJ
jects, all of which are matters properly
connected with its chief object, that it is
unnecessary that the title oil the Act should
contain every purpose of the law.
The constitution Of Texas contains pro-
vision similar to the under consideration.
1t declares that every law enacted by the
Legislature shall embrace but one object,
and that shall be expressed
in the title" this provision has
received judicial Interpretation in the case
of the city of San Antonio against Me-
Haffy, SO, U. s. The Legislature of that
State passed an act ito incorporate the
San Antonio Railroad Company" Like
the law we have under consideration, it
had other provisions, one of which was,
to authorize the city Of San Antonio to
take stock in the company and issue bouds
to pay for the same" The Supreme
Court of the United States in that case
held the law to be
CONSTITUTIONAL,
and that il had but one object, and that
was expressed in the title. In the case
of Unity vs.. Burrage, 1O3, L. ). 45S, the
Supreme Court was again called upon to
pass upon q clause Of the constitution OF
Illinois, similar, if not almost identical in
phraSeolOgy to the one we have under
consideration; and the Court again affirm
ed its ruling in the case of San Antonio
vs. Nc Hafy, citing with .apprObatiOn the
case Of the Belleyille &c, Railroad Com
pany vs. Gregory, reported in Is Ill. 20.
Still later the Supreme Court Of Illinois
maintained this doctrine i'll Ross vs. Chi
cago K. Il. n, Ill. This long line Of de
cision was recently reviewed by the Su-
preme Court Of the United States in the
case of Mahomet vs. Quackenbush, III, L.
). sos, and the Chief Justice speaking for
the Court again sustained their previous
ruling upon this question. The decisions
OF the highest tribunals i'll the State of
Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin are to
the same effect, upon similar provisions in
their respective constitutions. In some
other States, California and possibly Mis-
souri,, the Courts hold differently, but,
not only is the weight of authority in the
highest tribunals in the State
against them, but the law
1O7 L. S, P. 147; 10 U. S, p. 1872; III
L. s, p. l; 113 L. s., p. l35-
Independent of the express adjudi-
cations we have noticed upon this ques-
ton, it would be clearly the duty OF the
Court to adopt
A LIBERAL RULE
of Interpretation, so as to give effect to the
Legislative intention, unless its action was
clearly so repuguant to the constitution rs
to violate well known principles of con-
structiOn. This liberal rule of cOnstruc-
tiOn should always prevail before Courts
annul statute by Judicial action. We
are therefore of opinion, that the 3rd
section of the act of February, 1870, is not
in conflict with the constitution Of this
State, and must therefore be held valid.
This conclusion, we think, is not only
founded in reason, but as we have seen is
sanctioned by authority.
Ii is next suggested, that the authority
conferred upon the Supervisors, by this
act, is at least questionable, if in fact there
is any warrant IN the constitution for its
exercise.
By the terms of the 5th section OF the
act in question, power was delegated by
the Legislature to the Supervisors of JEFF
fersOn county, to submit the question Of
subscription To the capital stock of the
said railroad to all the male taxpayers Of
the county, ut q special election, above the
age of twenty-One years, not under any OF
the disabilities mentioned in the act. 1t
is urged that the power thus conferred
by the Legislature is not warranted by the
constitution. Thisis delegation of power
to local authorities for local purposes.
There is nothiug in the constitution
which inhibits the Legislature from the
exercise of such power. In the absence
of sucha restriction upon the Legislative
power, the exercise OF it, cannot be qUes-
toned. 1t is frequently done by the Legis-
latures of various States upon similar pro-
visions in their constitutions, and in almost
every instance where the power has been
4 h.
legislative view of it's exercise.
THE POWER OF TAXATION
for local and municipal purposes has most
always been delegated. The reason for 1t,
is founded in necessity, and the exercise Of
the power cannot now be questioned. The
next objection taken to the validity of the
Act is, that the Legislature did not pro-
vide for the submission Of the question OF
making subscription to vote OF the peo-
pie, but, only to portion, OF class Ofthem,
to-wit: the male taxpayers Of the county
over twenty-ole years OF age, etc.
This provision of the constitution Is
similar to the constitutions Of several of
our sister States. The present constitu-
tion of Virginia, rs well as the one IN
force before the war, both contain similar
provisions to the one under consideration.
A similar question to the one now raised,
was presented under the old constitution
of Virginia, in the case Of Bull and Others
against Reed and others, reported in 18th
Grafton, -. In that case, the Legislature
of Virginia passed an act establishing
system of free schools in particular dis
trict in the county OfAccOmack, but pro
vided that the act shall (should)
not be carried into effect,
until the people of the district
shall (shOuld) by a vote taken for the pur-
pose, approve it. Under this Constitution
every white citizen 21 years old, etc, was
qualified 10 vote. 1t will he observed.
however, that the act required the vote to
be submitted to the people of the district
for the purpose of their approval, instead
of white male citizens, who were the quail
flied voters under the constitution. In
that case it was claimed that the question
of submission to the people ofthe district,
was a clear violation of that clause of the
which defines the quallhea-
ton of voters. But the Court Oyerruled
this objection, maintaining the validity OF
IL