Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-09-21

discharge of. their duties within their
own districts, but only when they were
called in by a judge of another dis
trict; it apparently was not in the
minds of the Legislators when the
bill was introduced, to provide for the
payment OF expenses of judges when
acting in their own districts although
outside of the county Of their resi-
dence. A district judge is as much
judge of one county in his district as
in another.
See case of State ex rel vs.. Nom
land, N. D. 427, where chapter 4S
of the Laws of 1898 was held void as
being in violation of section 81 of the
state constitution, because the subject
of the act was not expressed in the
title. The act construed in this case
was broader in its body than in the
title. 1t provided for the designation
of repositories for state funds, the
approval of bonds of such repositories
required the treasurer to deposit the
state funds in such designated depos-
itaries, and provided for interest there
on, and relieving the state treasurer
from liability for money so deposited.
The title of the act was can act Great
ing the office Of the state board of au-
ditors, and prescribing the duties
thereof"
See also, in the case of Richard vs..
Stark County, 8 N. D. 1872, the supreme
court of this state held chapter Is Of
the Laws Of 1895 to be unconstitution-
al, because the subject of the act was
not expressed in the title as required
by section 81 of the constitution. The
act construed in that case was en-
titled "An act to increase the reve-
nues of the state by changing and in
creasing the boundaries Of the coun-
ties of Billings, Stark and Mercer"
In that case the supreme court of this
state clearly stated reason for hold
ing acts in violation Of this and sim
liar constitutional provisions to be
void. The reasons assigned by the
court are germane to the question
we now have under consideration.
The title of chapter IT'S of the Laws
of 1911 is misleading. 1t indicates
that a certain definite object is sought
to be accomplished by the law, but
upon reading the entire act it appears
that another object is attained by it.
It is true that the main purpose sought
it to reimburse judges for their per-
sonal expenses, but the act goes fur.
Their than it's title, and attempts to
provide for their reimbursement not
only in extraordinary cases. where
they are called out of their districts,
but when they are acting in their
home districts, prov ding they are out
Of their residence. The language of
the supreme court in the case last
cited, it seems to me, is appropriate
to be quoted. The court said:
Eve think the title to the act in
question Is dangerously misleading,
and presents forcible instance of one
of the evils which this constitutional
provision was intended to prevent. In
each case where this provision has
been before US We have held that it
was mandatory alike upon the legisla-
ture and the courts, and, when the
violation Of the provision by the leg
islature is too plain to admit of doubt,
We are reluctantly compelled to cor,
rect it."
1t is therefore my opinion that chap
ter 175'of the Session Laws of 1911 is
unconstitutional and void for any pur.
pose, and that the payment of the
expenses Of district judges should be
declined by you.
Yours respectfully,
ANDREW MILLER,
Attorney General.