The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1901-05-17

s;ors like this in State constitutions.
n. SAYS: 1T may he assumed as se0''"
that the purpose of these provisions was
hrst to prrv, Mt hodge podgr or i"s-foli'hs
legislation.
.Srrond, to prevent surprises or upon
the legislature by means Of provisions III
hills of which the titles give no 'hti"a'
flo, and which might therefore ne over
looked and carelessly or uninlehtloha'iy
adopted. A., o,,,o
third, to fairly appris" the people
through such publication oil ,'e'S."'he
proccring AS is usually maue Vi the
subjects of legislation that are belhs con
sidrrcd in order that they may nave an
,ruor,unity Of being heard thereon by
NATHAN or otherwise if they shall so
desire .,... -.
8, far rs thr subject Of taxation Tor
municipal purposes is concerned Is not
This title open to all of the 1hrec Cd.
irrtions as stated by Judge Cooley
First AS tending to log-rolling or
omnibus legislation: second, surprise or
fraud upon the legislature. there be no
iutimation of this subject. thlrd. giving
n, fair notice 10 the people of TINS sun
jcct Of legislation.
In addition. does not thu title negative
rho nrcsen,r of legislation for municipal
p,rposcs, by expressly ronilnlng inc
srone Of the act to he FOR state ana
county purposes and to that extent de-
rriyinr and misleading the legislature
and the people.
If III, tile Ind stopped with the words
IAN act to cuualize taxation, d'hercnt
uuestion would have been presented In
that case the general subject of taxation
without any qualification other than that
Of equality would be covered. When to
these words, however, are added the
limitations for State and county pur-
NOSES" il becomes the legislative declara-
lion that no other than State and county
taxation are contemplated.
The Judge says we consider that the
legislature did intend to strike out, for it
was said so expressly. True it has not
provided substitute but that Is an
omission only as to the substitute and
does not affect the validity Of the strik-
ing out. Who can tell what action the
legislature would have taken in case new
section 70 should prove to be uncon-
stitutional1 "htsj
The Judge says: "'rne faint of nncon.
Stitutionnlity applies therefore to the levy
and collection of the tax as well as to
its distribution and may not be separated
from the residue without destroying the
machinery for levying and collecting
taxes for all purposes
1t may be said moreover that so much
of new section IL being void as relates
TO the distribution Of the tax, the original
statute as amended becomes imperative,
because the object for which the tax
| is levied is eliminated thercfrom, thus
leaving the statute without purpose.
practically a nullity.
Our conclusion is that ns section IL of
the original act was repealed by section
of the amending act; that as so much
of said new section ~ as relates to taxa-
ton for municipal purposes in the amend
| ing act is unconstitutional and void be-
cause it is not covered by the title; and
that as the constitutional part cannot
be separated from the residue without
emasculating the statute that therefor"
the act as amended is unconstitutional
and void and the plaintiff Is entitled to
recover.
Entertaining this view II becomes I'M
necessary for us to consider the remain
ing questions which were raised and
argued with SO much force and ability,
viz: first the unconstitutionality Of the
act because It Is claimed to be in viola
ton of section l, article 8 Of the con-
stituton Of 1897 providing for uniform
| ity in taxation.
Second. the alleged illegality Of the
| tax for 1888 because 1t was not assessed
according to law, In that the taxable