Crawford avalanche. (Grayling, Mich.) 1879-19??, 1888-05-31
HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Text of the Supreme Court Decision
Pronuncing the Local-0ption
Law Invalid.
Its Object Not Being Expressed in th'
Title, It Is, Therefore, in Conflict
With the Constitution.

IHib, III 1S, 1netoIOre, IN OOnnlOL
With the Constitution.
Charles Hauck was convicted In the Circuit
Court for the county OF Jackson upon an infor-
nation charging him with being engaged in
keeping saloon in the city Of Jackson where
malt, brewed, fermented, ard vinous liquors
so engaged he kept his saloon ana bar therein
open. and did not keep said saloon and bar
closed until o'clock OF the following morning
on on the 18th day % OF February lssS said 2oth day
OF February, 1888, being an election day, said
election beng held In the city and county OF
jackson on said day, under and by virtue OF a
general law of the State, being Act No. IN OF
the laws Of 1887 OF said State approved juno ls,
1887, the said Charles Hauck not being engaged
In selling drugs, etc. The Court sentsnced him
to pay tine OF $50 and costs, assessed at S25
and in default of the payment OF such fine and
costs that he be imprisoned in the County Jail
Of said county until said fine and costs are
ty days from the date OF sentence, which was
the l4th day Of April, 1883,
Default was made In the payment of tho fine
and costs and Hauck was committed to the
County Jail, from whence he has pett.oned
this court for awritof habeas corpus to inquire
into the cause OF his detention. In his petition
ne alleges thirteen reasons why his imprison-
ment is illegal, as follows:
a. It is in violation OF that part OF Art. 4, Sec
70, OF the Constitution Of this State, which re-
quires the object of law to be expressed in
its title; said act being entitled AN act to reg
ulate the manufacture and sale OF malt, brew
ed. fermented, spirituous and vinous liquors in
the several counties Of this State" while the
object OF said act is to prohibit such manufac-
ture and sale in counties where q majority of
tho electors voting at an election to be called in
accordance with the provisions OF said act shall
vote against such manufacture and sale.
% Because it violates Sec. /, OF Art. 4 OF the
Constitution, in that il delegates to the people
by said section In the s. nate and House of
Representatives Said act does not take effect
In any county by its own terms and provisions,
ror upon the judgment and determination of
the Legislature, but takes effect only by virtue
OF a vote OF a majority OF the electors voting as
ing OF an election compulsory, but leaves 1T en-
trely at the option OF the people OF the several
counties to act upon it or not.
a. because any township or city, containing
one fifth or more OF the electors In county,
may force upon the other cities and townships
an election against their wishes, thereby sub
Verting the right of local self-government.
"5. Because the Legislature cannot authorize
the holding of such election upon the petit IN
OF one-hfth OF the voters OF the county; it being
the duty of the Logis ature to provide for the
holding of such election or to refer it to some
authority recognized by the Constitution.
"d. Because the act does not provide any
means for determining whether the appli, a.
tons for an election, presented to the County
Clerk, as proYided for in section OF said act
are signed by one NTH OF the voters OF the
cAunty, or that such signers are voters.
~. Because there is no provi ion in said act
for making any record of the determination OF
the County Clerk that one-fifth OF the voters OF
the county have made such application for the
holding Of such election, or for the preservation
OF said applications, or the making Of any
record Of the call issued by said County Clerk
| for such election, or the preservation Of any
proof thereof, or any record or proof OF any act
| In connection with the holding OF such election
| until the returns Of the local election boards.
"6. Because there Is no provision in said act
| for giving notice to the electors of the town
ships and wards, by the township clerks OF
or otherwise OF the calling OF said election, OF
timo and place OF holding the same.
| 80. Because no provision is made for the
OPP ming or closing Of the polls. nor the mannoi
| Of conducting such election, excepting the man
/ ner Of casting the ballots and making the re-
| turns.
40. Because there Is no provision for q
county can vass of the votes or returns or Other
Official determination Of the result of the elec
| tion.
al. Because the tabular statement OF the
votes cast in each voting precinct In the county
provided to be made by the County Clerk, II
| matters therein contained, including the result
| OF such election.
"I2. Because said act attempts to confer upor
the majority Of the electors voting at such elec
| tion q power not possessed by the Legislature
| itself, viz. (: To alter, amend. suspend, and su
persede as provided Inns IN section !, other genera %
| OF such vote as those which may be passed by
tho Legislature thereafter. The Legislature
| cannot revise, AFTER, OF um6n0 u Jaw Dy T0IeT
ence to its title only Const. Art. 4, Sec -
Neither can it pass irrepealable laws.
-13. Because said act was repealed by &c
NO gly OF the Pa1S aiss 2, pa dSs De,ng an % dc
traffic In liquors. Tho proyiso in said last act
designed to prevent such repeal, is prohibtor
,Ds,nsta1 by % Its tiiie and is In confiSos viii
500 20, Art. :, OF the Constitution
About the same time tho petition for habea
corpus was presented to us another petition
was presented by the people on the relation o
Charles T.. Keefer for a mandamIs against tht
Common Council OF the city Of Hillsdale =
| compel them to approve n bond presented 4
| them for the purpose OF complying with th
provisions of act No 3l3 OF the public acts o
1857, which requires every. person engaged Il
| the sale Of liquors excopt druggists to presen
| to the Common Council n bond for their ap
proval on or before the FIRST Monday In May
The Common Council r, fused to act upon tn
bonl for the reason that the provisions Of tn
act aforesaid were sHspended in the county Q
Hillsdale by a vote ttken under act No. IN Q
the Public Acts OF 1857 This act the relate
cases involving the same questions have bee
heard and argued together, and this opinio
| will coyor the points taken in both cases
| Act No. 1877 Of the Puzzle Acts Of 1887
| here set out at length in the opiniou.l
Article 4, section - OF the Constitution {
this State provides:
which shall be expressed in it's title
| Counsel for the petitioner claims that act /
is void because the object OF the law 10 not e'
In testing nets OF the -Legis' ature by thi
clause of the Constitution we should not on tn
one hand be so hgpercritical as to require o.
cry m after OF detail to be stated in the it'll,
nor on the other hand so liberal as to render th
statute nugatory. But regard shoald be had
the letter and spirit Of the Constitution. th
evils IL was intended to prevent, the rights
was intended to preserve. and so regarding 1t
test the act which Is claimed to bo repugnaI
Co this clause candidly and Justly, and IL
| shall appear that the constitut onal provisio
has been disregarLcd. to perform the duty ei
| joined On us by oath OF o1ce and dec al
| the act unconstituticnal and voil The duty
the court is we'll expressed in the brief OF Il
| counsel for the people. g fol ows;
~This court Will construe act No. 19I so
TO give it effect rs n law, aud hold IL const
tutonal, unless the case is very clear and tt
infraction FREQ from reasonable doubt IL IL
a matter of doubt whether this act was pas5e
IN disregard OF the constitutional provisions
will be sustained.
Judge Cooley in hts work on Constitution
Limitations FIRST edition.. page l49, snys: =
the Legislature may make the title OF the a
: as restrictive as they please, II Is obvious th
they may sometimes so frame IL as to preclu'
many matters being included in the act whi'
might with entire propriety, have been eI
braoed in one enaciment with the matters
dicated by the title. but which must now
excluded becaue tls title has been unnecs
shs scons ~ ths title. THey arc invested Wi
no dispensing power. The constitution b
mado the title the conclusive index 70 the le
lsIative intent as TO what shall have operate
It 10 no answer to say that tho title might ha
been more comprehensive, II, In fact, the lie
islature has not seen fit to make IL So"
This language was quoted and the principl
stated applied In the opinion OF this court wr
. ten by kr. Justice Sherwood, in the case
Callaghan vs. Chipman, 80 Mich 6l4 as "
| also tho language OF Mr. Justice Dooley In Pc
pie VS.. Mahaney, 19 Mich, 4sl, who, after
ferrine 70 a practice which has prevailed
| bringing together in one bill subjects diverse
their nature, and saying that u was corruptl