The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1891-12-17

aooi. - Vnls Iltle De not in compli-
ancc with article Ill, section 95, of the
constitution, then the act following il
is Vold. The mischief intended to he
avoided by section So, article iii ot
the constitution has been So
often stated that it is NOT now
necessary to restate them, and it must
be deemed settled that such law is
mandatory, and hence binding upon
any department of the government
Whlle this is so, such provisions have
peen lloerally construed, and it has
oeen steadily held that a title which
II substance is compliance with the
requirement of the constitution is suf-
iicient, but can it be claimed that the
Title in question is sufficient, even
under this liberal rule The constitu-
zion declares that the "subiect shall
be expressed in the title,u and it can
not be said that this has been done
when the title does no more than TO
furnish reference to some other doc
ument, writing or law from which
by search the true purnose
OF Dill may be ascertained. If such
had been the intention of the people
when they adopted the constitution or
of the delegates who framed it, the
peremptory language found in the
section of the constitution under con-
slderation would not have been used.
The body of the bill would furnish
more ready means of information to
members of the legislature as to it's
subject than would a mere reference
IN title to some other law which it
was the purpose of bill to amend,
but no one would contend that a title
as follows:
San act to amend an act in refer
ence to the subject contained in the
bill to which this is the title,u would
be compliance with the constitution.
No one would contend that a title
as follows:
San ac5 in reference to the subject
embraced in the bill" to which this is
the title would be sufficient, although
such title attached to a bill would
give most easy reference to source of
information from which the subject of
the contemplated law might be ascer-
tanned. This is so because the consti-
tuition requires the subject of an act to
be given in the title to it, and mere
reference to something else for the in
formation thus required to be given is
not sufficient. 1t cannot, with reason,
be contended that the title of the act
under consideration is a substantial
compliance with the requirements of
the constitution while the title does
not name the body of laws by it's title
or otherwise which it was the purpose
Of the legislature to amend, nor does
it otherwise designate the subject in
reference to which it was intended to
legislate.
If we look to title 3, articles and 10
of the Revised Statutes we may as
certain that these regulate or deter
mine to some extent the rights of
aliens, and if we look to the act in
question we see that it has applica |
ton, in part at least, to the same sub
iect, but it is not in this manner
that the constitution requires notice or
information of the subject Of q pro-
posed act to be given. 1t is claimed
that in 70 Missouri, page Is, the SUI
preme court of Missouri held title to
bill, in all material respects like
that under consideration in this case,
sufficient, but we do not think this is
true. The title to the act considered
in that case was as follows:
"An act to revise and amend
Chapters 176 to 1SG inclusive, regu-
lating the jurisdiction and procedure
before justices of the peace in civil
cases."
In that title certain chapters were
referred to as are articles in the title
in question, without a statement ofthe
particular act of which they are
parts, but had the title in that
act gone no further than the title be-
fore us, we apprehend that the SUI
preme court of Missouri would nave
decided differently. The title OF that
act besides naming the chapters to be
amended, expressly gave the subject
of the act to which the amendment
was to relate which was "the jurls-
diction and procedure before justices
eff the peace in civil cases." and the
court doubtless considered this
sufficient designation of the
chapters to be amended and
deemed the part OF the ACT
then under consideration indicating
the subject named. There is nothing
in the title of the act under considera-
ton from which the subject may be
known and were we to hold it com
nliance with the requirements OF the
constitution, we would deny to that
document the effect which its letter
and spirit show it was intended to
have. We think the court below cor
rectly held the act in question in,
operative for the reasons indicated
and it's Judgment will be afilrmeu'
Stayton, chief justice
"Your Money OF Your Life y
Such a demand at the mouth OF
"six-shooter' sets man thinking
pretty lively. With a little more nor.
thinking there would be less suffer-
Think of the terrible results OF neg