The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-12-25
COUNTY SCORES POINT
IMPORTANT OPINION BY JUDGE
 J. c. WINTER.
In the Hardman Case He Holds That County May Collect Li- censes From Montgomery
 Business Houses.

In an opinion handed down yesterday by Judge John G. Winter of the Mont- gomery Circuit Court 1t is held that Montgomery business houses are not exempt from county licenses upon pay ment of city licenses.
 The opinion was in the case of B. r. Hardman against Probate Judge Gaston to recover county licenses paid.
 County Tax Commissioner W. MI Bla- key demurred to the complaint of Mir. demurrers. The case will probably be
 The full opinion of Judge Winter is as follows: e
 B. F. Hardman vs. John B. Gaston as
 Probate Judge, etc
 This action Is brought to recover the sum of $11O alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as probate judge of Montgomery. As appears from the complaint. Hardman did on the 21st day of October. 1903, pay to the de- fendant the sum of $50 as a county license for the carrying on the business of mon ey lending in the city of Montgomery, under the name and, style of "The South ern Loan Company and also the sum. of $500 as commissioners tax fee; and also like sum and like fee for.like pur- pose, for carrying on said business in the city of Montgomery under the name and style of '"The Western Loan Company" which said payments were made under protest and on demand made by Wm. M. Blakey, the County Tax Commissioner, under the provisions of an act entitled An Act to better provide for the revenue of the State, approved March 4, 1903." It Is also alleged in the complaint that be- fore the passage of said act ''all county licenses were exempted under the char ter of the city of Montgomery" and that before It's passage plaintiff had paid to the city of Montgomery a license tax in the name of each. of said companies.
 To the complaint demurrer is filed in which several grounds are interposcd, viz:
 First-That the act "To establish a new charter for the city of Montgomery" ap- proved February 1st, 1S93 is violative of Section 2 of Article 1 of the Constitution of Alabama 1875. in that the journal of the Senate for said year fails to show that the said act was signed by the pre- siding officer of the Senate in the pres- ence of the Senate immediately after it's title had been publicly read"
 Second-Said Section % of said city charter is unconstitutional and void be- cause the same violates the provision of Section 2, Article 1 of the Constitution of Alabama, 1S75 in that 1t creates a fa- vored class with special privileges in those persons doing business within the city of Montgomery and exempts them from bearing their just proportion of the public burden by exempting them from the payment of license taxes for carry ing on business for which persons doing business outside of the city of Montgom- cry, but within the county of Montgom- cry. are required to pay such license"
 To this demurrer an amendment Is filed. setting up substantially the fore going grounds, and the additional ground (numbered 4 that "the said Section 20 of the said act to, establish a new charter for the city of Montgomery, approved February 21st, 1903, IS violative of Section of Article 4 of the Constitution of Ala bama, 1875, in that the same is not ex- pressed in the title to the said act"
 This ground of demurrer will only be considered, since I am, of the opinion that it disposes of the demurrer
 The title of the act approved Febru- ary 21st, 1893, is as follows: 'To estab- fish new charter for the city of Mont gomery."
 Section 20 of this act is in the follow ing words: Section 20. Be it further enacted, That all persons who procure q license from said City Council or its al1- thorized agents for doing or carrying on any business in said city shall be exempt ed from paying any tax or license to the county of Montgomery for carrying on said business in said city"
 Section of Article of the constitution of 1875 contains the following words: Each law shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title"
 It is not pretended that any charter of the city of Montgomery prepared prior to this constitutional limitation contained a like provision. as Sec. 20 of the charter of 1875. The proposition. therefore, clear. ly presented, Is the section of the pres ent city charter vlolative of Sec. 2 of Art of the constitution of 1875? In the case of Ballantyne vs. Wicker sham 75 Ala. 533. Mir Justice Stone. in construing this clause of the constitution says. constitutional limitations, similar to ours copied above, are found fin many of the later State constitutions. and in most of the States, as in this. It is declared to be mandatory" and in refer ence to the words. shall be clearly ex- pressed in the title,' he says: The in- tention of this was that the title of the act or bill should inforr0 the members Of the Legislature, and perhaps the pub lie, of the subject on which the former were invited to vote and legislate.''
 Again he says: That its requirements are not to be exactingly enforced, or in such manner as to cripple legislation. '' That the title of a bill may be only general. and need not specify every clause in the statute. Sufficient, if they are all referable, and cognate to the subject expressed. And when the sub ject Is expressed in general terms every thing which is necessary to make a com plete enactment in regard to it. or which results as complement of the thought contained in the general expression. Is in- cluded in and authorized by it." . And Quoting with approval a cited au- thority) if the title of the bill containing this general and comprehensive subject, is also comprehensive enough to include all these minor subjects as one subject, the bill and all parts thereof will be valid"
 While these rules of construction are most ably and lucidly set forth, yet we often find them difficult of application. r., the raaa oF yyoaIf va 1Eav1Or Ia