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

above quoted provision of our state
constitution, said:
How shall this provision be In
terpreted? What shall the word
Subject as used therein, be held 10
mean? Courts are bound to give
such an Interpretation to this pr.
vision as will make it reasonable and
at the same time give it full force !
am of the opinion that he legislature
must be the judge of the scope which
they will give to the word Subject
and that so long as the title embraces
but one subject it is not inimical to
such constitutional provision, even
although the subject as thus used
contains any number of sub-sub-
jects."
The title of said chapter $50 Of the
Washington Session Laws of the year
1907, reads as follows:
"An act to provide for the i'm
provement of the public highways,
providing for the payment of cost
thereof in part, opt of the public
| highway fund OF this state, and in
part out of the general road and
bridge fund, district road fund and
property benefited and making an
appropriation therefor"
The question now arises is the title
of the act quoted above sufficient to
embrace the provision contained III
section s of said act above quote.l,
and if it is sufficient to include said
provision of section s, does said
chapter $50 embrace more than ore
subject?
The evident purpose of our state
! Legislature in passing said chapter
| $50 was to provide for a better sys-
tenn of roads throughout the state of
Washington than has existed in the
past, and to that end to provide that
under certain circumstances the state
of Washington should assist the coun-
ties and loca communities in the i'm
framing this law the legislature con-
sidered that instances might arise in
which all of the contractors engaged
in constructing high ways or makir g
improvements upon public highway
of the character which might be
agreed upon by the state highway
board and the board of county COM
missioners might enter into an agree
ment not to put in bids for such con-
struction or improvement for any
reasonable sum, but for sums grossly
in excess fthe cost of such improve
ed. The legislature evidently had in
mind that circumstances might arise
in which no bids of private contrac-
tors or incorporated companies would
be submitted and that without a pro-
vision of the character cited in said
section s, the state and the county
would be powerless to improve a
highway under the provisions of said
chapter $50, no matter how great the
necessity for such Improvement. 1t
would seem that his provision is not
incongruous with the other prJyis-
ions of said chapter $50. but is a
proper sub-subject of the main sub
ject embraced in the title of the act.
You are therefore advised in the
light of the authorities cited above
that you, the state highway board,
and the board of county commission :
ers of Yakima county, in the alb.
sence of any decision of a cour1 Of
record, of this state holding the pro-
vision of section s. quoted above, of
said chapter $50 of the Session Laws
of 1907, to be unconstitutional would
be justified in proceeding upon the
theory that this provision of section
s is constitutional, and you would be
justified in entering into contract
with the board of county commits
sioners of Yakima county for the i'm
provement of the highway in ques-
ton. Truly yours.
I. B. KNICKERBOCKER,
Assistant Attorney General.
4 Paving Investment