Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-02-03

Mont. 81, Jobb VS.. Meagher County, 20
Mont. 424, and the authorities cited In
these cases. Briefly summarized they
are: to restrict the legislature to the
enactment Of avs the objects Of which
legislators, and the public as well, may
be advised Of, to the end that any who
are interested, whether as representatives
or those represented, may be intelligent
" watchful Of the course Of the pending
bill. The limitation is likewise designed
to prevent legislators and the people
from being misled by false or deceptive
titles, and to guard against fraud in leg
islation by way of Incorporating into a
law provisions concerning which neither
legislators nor the public have had any
intimatlon through the title read or pub
lished.
But by this constitutional notice it is
only intended that the subject Of the bill
shall be fairly expressed in the title. 1t
Is not necessary, for the constitution has
hot so declared, that a title shall en-
body the exact limitation or qualifca-
tions contained in the bill itself which
are germane to the purpose Of the legis-
lature, if the general subject Of the meas
ure Is clearly expressed in the title.
Upon the highest authority it Is held
that. under constitutional provisions sub
stantially k that referred to in Mon
tana, where the degree Of particularly
necessary to be expressed in the title Of
a bill is not indicated by the constitu-
ton itself, the courts ought not to "em-
barrass legislation by technical interpre-
tatlons based upon mere form or phrase
ology. The objections should be grave and
the conflict between the statute and con-
stitution %palpable, before the judiciary
should disregard a legislative enactment,
MINOR the solo ro11n6 fhof ~ 80
more than one object, or if but one OBJ
ject, that it was not sufficiently expressed
by the title"
In harmony with those sound princi-
pies OF the construction of like consti-
tutlonal limitations we are of opinion that
appellants point is not we'll taken. We
fail to see in the title Of this amended
bill any substantial departure from the
constitutional requirement. That the
bill itself contained but one subject is
obvlous-in fact, we do not understand
appellant to contend otherwise. That
that one subject, however, is clearly ex-
pressed in he bill is disputed. but not
convinc1ngly so. The title specifically re-
fers to the section Of the penal ode to
be amended. and adds thereto ITO have
the cages In all mines cased in" The law
itself requires cages in all mines to be
cased in. If cages are used and If the
mines are worked through vertical shafts
~ - 6AS0VCA uCPlA lAdU OUU 160l. II IOl-
lows that in mines not operated through
vertical shafts over 300 feet in depth,
cages If used, need not be such as the
law specifies. The law pre-supDoses
such a development as leads to the use Of
cages, n then only undertakes the reg
ulations prescribed.
Now what was the underlying object
OF this legislation? Plainly, to better
protect the lives and limbs of miners
working in developed mines wher such
development or operation is through ver-
teal shafts in mines where cage are
used. There must be a reasonably ex-
tensive development 300 feet in depth be-
FORE the appliances specified need be used
at all, but when such development is had.
the law becomes uniform in it's operation
by requiring that in vertical shafts In
all mines so developed where cages are
used, the cages must be cased in ana
covered in a certain way. The legislature
IN ITS wisdom apparently deemed it un-
necessary to require such extraordinary
protection in properties where the shafts.
though vertical. are less than 800 feet
deep; and We do not assume more than
a common knowledge Of the law when
we state 1t as a fact, generally known,
that in Montana few mining properties
operated through vertical shafts are
classlfed by miners as mines, to be
systematically worked until the develop
ment exceeds three hundred feet. Clear
iy. 1t was never meant to create a sta
tute that would in the least retard the
development of prospect by demanding
expensive and elaborate means of pro-
lection unnecessary While prospecting or
shallow mining only was going on.
As stated, the aims of the legislature
was to insure a proper protection for
miners where a prospect has opened into
a "mine." In which deep mining is to be
carried on and the enterprise has taken
on some degree of permanency of opera
ton for. obviously. it is in deep mining
that the protection Is most needed.
Though the words Of the title ito
have the cages in all mines ca.s@i i'm
are general. they give clear notice to the
operators Of all mines where cages are
used that their properties might be at
fected by the law. There was no de-
ception by design or accident, and We