The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-09-28

town the proportionate share of the public school revenue is not a subject expressed in, covered or suggested by the title of the act or necessary or proper to the full rounding of an enactment upon the subject which Is expressed In the title and is therfore obnoxious to the require ment of section 45 of the constitution that each law shall contain but one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title.'
 Cases Quoted.
 Tn the case of Bell vs. State, 115 Ala, ST, the court considered an act to establish a new charter for the city of Huntsville and held that the provision of this act forbidding the prosecution on affidavit before a jus already been arraigned before the may or for the same act under the city ordinance, was violative of the consti- tutional provision to which 1 have Judge Mcclellan, speaking for the court, said:
 "'The subject to be contained in a bill may be as broad and comprehen- siVe as the legislature may choose to make 1t. It may include innumerable minor subjects, provided all those minor subjects are capable of being combined as to form only one grand and compreh ensive sub ject; and if the title of the bill. containing this grand and comprehensive subject, is also comprehensive enough to include all these minor sub jects as one sub ject, the bill and all parts thereof will be valid. The grand and compre- hensive subject expressed in the title to this act is the charter of the city, the creation of corporate existence and the comforting of corporate powers. Such subject embraces all the minor subjects incident to such corporate ex- istence and powers and whatever is necessary to a complete municipal charter or Is embraced in the thought contained in the general expression Is a part of the subject expressed, and authorized by the general expression. But, to take away from any trib- unal, even of the most inferior char acter, established by general laws and charged with their administration, Jurisdiction heretofore conferred to try offenses against the criminal laws of the state, and to confer 1t exclusively upon an officer of a municipal corpora ton, Is not to provide for the exercise to confer any power incident to muni- cipal government nor to follow any suggestion which can be referred to the expressed purpose of establishing a
 Tn the case of Black vs. State, IA Ala, 92, the court followed the case of Bell vs. State, supra, and held that like provision contained In an act to amend act to incorporate the town of Genea,' was unconstitutional
 General Principle.
 The following cases support the gen ersl principal laid down by Judge Me Clellan in the Bell case:
 Ex rel Gayles, 10S Ala, 614: Bradley vs. State, 99 Ala. TIT: Glenn vs. Lynn, S9 Ala, sos; Mobile vs. l.. & N, 124 Ala, 132-142; The State vs. Sou. Ky, 115 Ala, 250; Ballantyne vs. Wicker sham, 75 Ala, 53S; Ex. rel Reynolds, ST Ala, 13S; White vs. Boyin. 113 Ala, ITO: Montgomery vs. State, SS Ala, Al; Sanders ys State, IT Ala 543; Lind say vs U. s. Asso.. 120 Ala, 1o6; Gov ington vs Thompson, 142 Ala. 111-l12.
 .sThe title of the act in question may for conyenfnece be divided into three divisions: fa). To provide for the or ganization. incorporation, government and regulation of cities and towns. tb). To define the rights, powers dities. Jurisdiction and authority of such cities and towns and Of the ofhcers thereof Co. To prescribe penalties Tor violations of the provisions of this act.
 Applying Principle.
 Applying the principle of these cases to the case in hand, the subject matter of section 176 does not relate to the or ganzation incorporation. government and regulation of cities and towns; nor Is 1t a right, power, duty or a feature of the Jurisdiction and authority of cities and towns and of the officers thereof, and clearly it has no relation to the last division of the title-prescrbing penalties for violations of the provisions of this title in view. it is apparent that the only