The Dickinson press., 1899-05-27
Declared Unconstitutional.

The supreme court handed down a de-
cision in the Stark county boundary law
on the 10th of May. The decision as
handed down, knocks out the law be-
cause of its title, and the syllabus of the
opinion says:
"Chapter IS, laws of 1895, is entitled
AN act to increase the revenues of the
state by changing and increasing the
boundaries of the counties of Stark, Bill
ings and Mercer The body Of the act
Simply increases the boundaries of such
counties. Held, that the act is unconstitu-
tional because the subject of the act is
not expressed in the title as required by
section 81 of the constitution of the state
In the opinion in the case, which is
written by Judge Bartholomew, after a
statement of the general provisions of law
with reference to the titles of bills and
the expression properly of the subject
matter therein, the court says:
at (the act) is entitled Gan act to in
crease the evenues Of the state by chang
ing and increasing the boundaries of the
counties Of Billings, Stark and Mercer"
1t requires no studied analysis of this IT,
tie to discover, first, that the declared
subject of the act is an increase in the re-
venues of the state, and second, that the
remainder of the title but specifies the
means and. instrumentalities by which
that increase is to be secured. But the
allegation of the means and instrument
~talities in no manner affects the
ed subject. If the title be good it does
not require the additional allegations.
If the title be bad the additional allega-
tions cannot cure it.. For the purpose Of
the question under discussion the title is
simply "an act to increase the revenues
of the state" Turning to the body Of the
act we find that it contains five sections.
The first fixes the boundaries of Billings
county, the second fixes the boundaries
of Stark county and the third fixes the
boundaries of Mercer county. The fourth
section provides that the provisions of the
three proceeding sections shall not go in
to effect until the matter has been SUBJ
mitted to a vote of the qualified electors
of the respective counties. The fifth re-
peals all conflicting laws. From the first
to last there is NJ reference, in terms, to
the revenues Of the state in the body of
the act. But counsel for respondent in
sists that this court must take judicial no
tice of the fact that the necessary result
of the act was to increase the revenues of
the state. We do not so understand it.
1Iuc VIC llldy Take llOllCC lIldt dill TIC Vast
expanse added to the counties named by
the act consists of unorganized counties.
But while we have.no doubt of its truth,
we cannot take judicial notice Of the fact
that such territory is but sparsely pepu-
lated and is covered with vast and valua-
BILE herds of horses, cattle and sheep.
But that fact cannot aid respondent. IN
der the law as it stood prior to the pas
sage of this act all taxable property in
u~norganized counties was taxed for state
puf; r asai all respects Io,sas; the same as proper per-
to 1889 inclusive, Revised Codes.) No
increase in the revenues Of the state was
possible under the provisions of the act.
This is not a case where the title is broad
er than the act. 1t is simply a case
where the. subject as named in the title
is not adyerted to in the body of the act
and where the subject as set forth in the