Birmingham age-herald., 1895-06-15

ing of the constitution, and the election of member of the house of representa- tives, as judge of the court, within the evil intended to be provided against by the constitution.
 The demurrer also raises the further question of the constftutionality of the act of February 21, 1893. Acts of 1S92-93, p. 7S9. It Is contended that the act vio- lates seetior 2, article " of the consti- tuition, which declafes that "Each law shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in it's title and no law shall be revived, amended or the provision thereof ex- tended or conferred by reference to its title only; but so much so thereof as is revived amended, extended or con ferred shall be re-enacted and published at length. The act Is entitled An act to amend sections 3171, SITS and 31S3 of the code of Alabama" The act begins as follows: "Section 1. Be it enacted by the general assembly of Alabama, That sections 3171, S17S and 31S3 of the code of Alabama. be amended so as to read as follows: Section 3171." Then follows the sections as amended in full. Appellant contends that under the constitution it was necessary to set out the sections proposed to be amended as they were in the code, and then as amended should be set out at length. There are some few decisions which support this construe- ton of the constitutional provision, but Ile very great We1RnC or duIQOflIY Is opposed to this View and we do not think the language of the constitution, in view of the evil intended to be guarded against, requires such a construction. The generally adopted construction of similar constitutional provisions is, that "it is a sufficient compliance with the re- quirement to set out the law as amended without reciting the old law as it stood before the amendment" State vs. Ben nett. 102 Mo. S64; Bush vs. Indianapolis, 120 Ind. 476; state vs. Amer. Forcite Co.,. 50 N. J. 275. A great many authorities are collected in the notes to the text in Law, D.. PSI. This construc- ton has also been recognized in this state in the case of Wilkinson vs. Ketler, 59 Ala. 306; state vs. Warford, S4 Ala, 15; Dunbar vs. Frazier, 78 Ala, 53s.
 We do not think the act subject to the constitutional objection urged against it. Section 4316 was @ general provision, pro- Viding for the contingencies therein men toned and would have applied indepen- dent of such provision, in the act under consideration.
 Instead of making a formal, and we should add, a legal return to the informa- tion, respondent merely denied each and every averment of fact contained in the information. The rule in proceedings of this character, where the respondent ad- mits that he is holding and exercising the powers and duties of the office, devolves upon him the burden of showing by what authority he holds the office, and that ha is in rightful exercise of its duties and powers. The state has the undoubted right to require-of every one who claims to hold and does hold public office un- der it's statutory or constitutional pro-. visions, to show a lawful authority for the exercise of it's powers and privileges and this rule is not changed by the stat utory provision which permits a private person to join with the state in the en- quiry by quo warranto. The denial of the