, 1892-01-09
A PETITION DENIED in A KING
COUNTY CASE.
The Petitioners AIIege the Action
of the Judge of the Lower Court
Was In Excess of His Jurisdic-

TContinued from Friday.l


Continued from friday
We will now proceed to brief investiga-
tion Of such authorities as our time has
permitted us to examine bearing upon this
question, and in this regard we have been
very much aided by the able opinion of
Mr.. Justice Turner, in the case Of Harland
VS.. the territory, supra. In fact, from the
well known ability of that distinguished
Judge, it will be evident to the bar of this
state that the strong cases tending to sus-
tain the doctrine Of said case have. been
cited. and reviewed in that opinion. We
have carefully examined every case cited
in said opinion as sustaining the doctrine
of that case, and we will now proceed
briefly to review each and all of them
The cases of People VS.. Hills 85 N. Y.
449, and People VS.. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553,
n. Y. 294 are the only ones cited by the
learned judge as directly in point as sus-
tanning the position taken by him in said
case. AS we read these cases they do not
at all decide the point in ques-
ton. On the contrary, the con
clusion is almost irresistible from the
reading of the case of People VS.. Hills.
supra, that had the title construed in that
case been like the one now under consider
alton, it would have been held good. The
title therein construed was as follows:
Il An act to amend chapter 3S9 of the Laws
Of 1851" In rendering the opinion Of the
courtin speaking of such title the court
substantially says, that therefrom it is evi-
dent only that said chapter was to be
amended. not that it was to be re-enacted
or revised as a whole, and that as it en-
braces 293 sections, title which in
substance says that it proposes to
amend one or more of such sections
without designating which ones was
bad. The learned judge makes use of the
fCIlfxUi1,o Ia puiIapa ci,hiont ~, i t+o,,
OF the act is to increase the number Of di-
rectors which the common council Of the.
city of Rochester were entitled to elect to
compose the board of directors of the Ro-
chester & Gennessee Valley Railroad Com
pany. No human ingenuity would ever
discover that subject from the little of the
act Z X If the framer of the act of
March "a, 1865 had entitled it an act to
amend section 290 ofchapter 389 Of the laws
of 1851, a reader by referring to that sec
tion might have obtained from its title
some notion of what the subject matter of
the act related TO-" In another place he
makes use of the following language: "The
act under consideration does not indicate
from its title what particular part or sec
tion of the acts of 1851 is amended
In the cOse of People VS.. Briggs, supra,
the court refers to and approves of the case
of People vs.. Hill, supra, and distinguishes
this case from that, and while it makes use
Ol SOME eApreSSlOHS WHICH, q ell 10 warrant
the citation made in the case of Harland
VS.. The Territory, supra, yet the whole
case carefully considered seems to me to be
upon the other side. 1t held the title un-
der consideration good though it was as
indefinite as any title could well be under
the circumstances. Several acts relating
to the city Of Rochester were in existence,
the title construed by the court was stAn
act to amend the several acts relating to
the city of Rochester" In my opinion
such a title could only have been sustained
by the application of a rule fully as liberal
as those which we have invoked in the case
at bar. Moreover the judge deciding the
cause makes use of this pertinent ana ex-
pressive language: 1T is not requisite
that the most expressive title should be
adopted, nor should courts criticise too
rigidly the details of bill to find extrane-
GUS matter Every presumption is in favor
of the validity of legislative acts, and they
are to be upheld unless there is substan-
tial departure from the organic law. Courts
have no concern with the propriety or wis
dom of legislation
The only other case cited by Justice
Turner as being directly in point, that of
Tingue VS.. the village of Port Chester,
supra, simply refers to and confirms the
two cases above quoted from, and estab-
fishes no new doctrine that we can dis
cover.
These are all New York cases, and conse-
quently in the Interpretation thereof the
language of the same court in the decision
of other cases becomes material, and in
every one that we have been able to ex-
anime bearing upon the question there are
expressions which confirm our interpreta-
ton of the cases above cited For instance
in the case Of the People VS.. Banks, 81 N.
Y. 568, Judge Allen, in rendering the opin-
ion of the court, made use of the following
language: cit is not allowable for the pur-
pose of invalidating a law to sit i'll judg-
ment upon its title; to determine with
critical acumen whether it might not have
been more explicit, and SO drawn as more
clearly and definitely toindicate the nature
of the legislation covered by it, The legis-
lature is not subject to judicial control in
respect to the form or mode in which the
subject of bill shall be expressed. If it
is expressed the constitution is satisfied"
The other cases cited in the opinion of
the learned judge under consideration as
tending to establish the doctrine thereof
are wider of the mark than the ones al
ready reviewed. In the case of People VS..
Galway, % N. w. Reporter. 101, it is sim
ply decided that regulate" in title was
not broad enough to include prohibit" in
the body of the act. The case of State VS..
Smith, reported in the same volume SIM
ply decides that under the circumstances
of that case the repeating OF a certain sec
ton could not be sustained under title
which provides only for the amendment of
these laws.
ITO be continued.