The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1904-07-25

frmatively show was passed in accord
ance with the provisions of this section.
This notice, as is seen, is required not
only to be published for the length OF
time, and in the manner specined' anu
proof thereof made to each house OF the
legislature, and spread upon the journals
but 1t is also required to state the SUD
stance of the proposed law.
The notice given In this instance was
as follows. Notice is hereby given of
the intention to apply to the legislature OF
Alabama for the passage of an act the
substance of which will be 70 consolidate
the city court of Birmingham the circuit
court of jefferson county, the criminal
court of jefferson county and the chan-
cery court of Jefferson county INTO one
court with all the powers and jurisdiction
now exercised by the court so consoiluat-
ed. as well as other powers and lurlsdlc-
ton, and provide Tor CLERKS Vi sa'u N0D
and their fees"
Section "a Article " of the former con-
sttution, for which said section Jos Is
substitute. provides for a notice TO pc
given of an intention to apply Tor the
nassare of a local law. but did not pro-
vide what the notice should contain ana
simply provided, as to proof that the eVl-
dence of such notice having been given
should be exhibited to the legislature be-
fore SutD Dill SBOuiA bt fe'f7f'-
silent as to what the journals shouiu
show.
| II was held in construction OF thls sec
tion. that 1t was not necessary FOR the
| legislative journals to show that notlce
| of an intention to apply for the passage
| of a local law, was given. and that the
courts would presume 1t was gwen ut-
less the journals afflrmatively showed to
| the contrary.-Clark vs.. JACK oo Aia"
H.
It turned out as Is well known that
| This provision of the constitution became
| almost a dead letter. and local legislation
In many instances was passed without the
required notice. This. II was oeneVeu'
was a great and growing evil wnlch
needed correction, and 1t was for correc-
| five purposes that said section lUo was
ordained. 1t was always supposed that
| the people to be Immediately aifecteu by
local legislation, ougt to have notice OF an
intention on the part of any one desiring
70 apply to the legislature for such legis-
lation. which was often sought for pri-
| vate and Improper ends. and not Tor the
| good of the people at large. Any notice
| therefore. which falls short OF adVlslhs
the public of the substance of such legls =
lation, would be deceptive or miseadlng'
depriving those opposed TO 1t, OF lalr
opporunity to protest against and oppose
its enactment. t.,
The word substance as employed IN
tho section cannot be said to be synon-
vmous with Subject or mere purpose
II means the essential or material part.
| essence, abstract, compendium, meahihs'
| Worcester's dictionary
! referring to the debate in the consttu-
tional convention on the section-as -
proper for the sake of interpretation
appears that before the motion was put
to adopt a member arose and stated
| Before that motion Is put. ] would IKE
to ask the chairman of the committee il
the substance of the proposed law means
that the law itself, in substance, snall
be published, or that the purpose OF the
proposed law be published. Would It not
be better to strike out the substance
and insert the purpose?'"
The chairman replied. 1.-THE committee
did not desire that the community should
be misled as to the purpose of the la"
and some times the caption of the Ia"
is very misleading. and it was to obviate
advantage being taken of the pubic II
the matter, that 1t was written as 1t IS.
The section was then adopted -Of1cia
report. forty-f1rst day. From this Il
would seem, that it was intended that the
essential or material part. the essence
the meaning or an abstract or compend'
ium Of the law, was to be given, ano
not its mere purpose or subject.
The title Of a bill may give notice Of It's
substance, but most often 1t does not
The title may be very general. and wher
the subject is expressed in general terms
every thing that is referable and cognat(
to the subject expressed, may be inclined
in the bill, without offense to that pro-
visian which requires that every law shall
contain but one subject which shall be
clearly expressed in the title. The sub
ject, therefore. may be expressed In the
title OF BILL but the substance is mol
required there to appear. In other words
there is wide difference in Legislative
language, In the meaning of the words
substance and subject, when applied to a
bill In Falconer VS.. Robinson. 46 Ala
547, the distinction between the two words
was well pointed out by Peck. C. j., n
respect to the title Of an act to authorize
the governor to fill vacancies In certain
Icouny Offices, when he said, 1.-THE sub.