The Yakima herald. [volume] (North Yakima, W.T. [Wash.]) 1889-1914, 1908-09-09


stitutional, unless 1t is so clearly
repugnant to some provision of our
state or federal constitution that
there can we'll be no difference of
opinion upon the question in the
minds of good lawyers. In all cases
where an act or portion of an act
passed by our legislature is not so
clearly unconstitutional, this office
will proceed upon the theory that
the law and each portion thereof IS
constitutional until our courts Of
record shall have held to the con-
trary.
Is this provision so clearly uncon-
stitutional? Let is see.
In arriving at conclusion as to
whether state law or portion of
state law is unconstitutional it
should be always borne in mind that
the state legislature has plenary
powers in the matter of legislation in
so far as the exercise thereof is not
in conflict with our federal or state
constitution.
The provision above referred to is
found in section of chapter $50 Of
the 1907 Session Laws, and reads as
follows:
"The board of county commission
ers of county in which any portion
of such highway lies may offer bids
and be awarded such contracts for
and on behalf of their respective
counties
1t has been suggested that his pro-
vision is unconstitutional for the rea-
son that the legislature is not per-
mitted to confer upon boards Of
county commissioners the power to
offer bids and be awarded contracts
for and on behalf of their respective
counties. I know of no provision of
either our federal or state constitu-
ton which restricts the powers of our
state legislature in this matter.
1t has been suggested that this pro-
vision of the statute is unconstitu-
tional for the reason that it allows
the county to compete with individ-
uals in the construction OF improve
ment of public highway. No pro-
vision of our federal constitution or
of our state constitution has been
called to my attention which pro-
hibits our state legislature from con-
ferring this power upon county act
ing through it's board of county COM
missioners.
1t has also been suggested that
this provision is unconstitutional In
that it is in conflict with the provis-
ions of section Q or article 2 of our
state constitution. Said section 10
reads as follows:
mo bill shall embrace more than
one subject, and that shall be ex-
pressed in the title"
Speaking of constitutional pro-
vision of this character, Judge Cooley
on Constitutional Limitations, 9th
Ed.) PIP. 2o5 and 200, said:
1.-THE general purpose of these pro-
visions is accomplished when a law
has but one general object, which Is
fairly indicated by its title. To re-
quire every end and means necessary
or convenient for the accomplishment
of this general object to be provided
for by a separate act relating to that
alone would not only be unreason-
able, but would actually render 1egis~
lation impossible The generality Of
a title Is therefore no biection to r.,
so long as it is not made cover to
legislation homogeneous in itself AMI
which by no fair fntendment can be
construed as having a necessary or
proper connection
In the case OF Seymour VS.. Ia
coma, n Washington 1873, our SUI
preme court said.
GAS the constitution has not in
Dictated the degree of particularly
necessary to express in its title the
subject of an act, the courts should
not embarrass legislation by techni-
cal interpretations based upon mere
form or phraseology. The objections
should be grave, and the conflict be-
tween the statute and the constitu-
ton palpable, before the Judiciary
should disregard the legislative en-
actment upon the sole ground that
the double subject was not fully ex-
pressed in the title"
In the case of State VS.. Hall, re-
ported in the cath of Washington at
page 255. our supreme court said.
"The general rule is that II she
matters embraced in the statute have