Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-10-01
SCHOOL CASE ARGUED
Controversy Over Medical Appropri-
alton in District Court.
HSATTER SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS
Opponents Declare Act Broader
Than Title and Attempts to
Amend Existing Laws in
Irregular Manner.
(From a staff correspondent

LINCOLN, Neb.. Sept. SO.-(Special)-
Judge Steward of the district court to-
day heard arguments on the application
of James S. Stewart of Hastings for
an Injunction forbidding Silas r. Bar
ton, auditor of the state, from issuing
warrants against the 100000 appropria-
ton authorized by the last session Of the
legislature for the construction OF an
other building for the medical college at
Omaha. The plaintiff was represented
by A. S. Tibbets, while c. S. Hastings
and II. H. Baldrige appeared for the
auditor. The matter was taken under ad-
visement by the court and will be sub
mitted by briefs.
The legislative enactment was attacked
on three grounds, alleging that the bill
was broader than its title, that 1t at
tempts to amend existing laws, and that
it confers special privileges in contra
vention of the state constitution.
Arguments of Lawyers.
Judge Tibbets argued that the act is
broader than its title, in that the title
describes the act as one appropriating
money for laboratory building, whereas
the body of the act states that the pro-
posed structure shall be known as
laboratory building, but may be used for
administration
as the needs of the medical college may
require.
AS TO the second objection. to the effect
that the act attempts to amend existing
laws, the attorney pointed out thatth
is a statute providing that all university
buildings must be within four miles of
the state capital The act in controversy
necessarily amends this, yet the prior
act is not mentioned and is not repealed.
il was furthermore claimed by the at
tOrney that IL is the purpose Of the
regents to use the new building for in
struction according to the allopathie
school of medicine, which would be con-
ferring special privileges and discrimi-
mating against the homeopathic and eclec-
tics.
In answer to the argument that this
act amends other laws which are not
mentioned nor repealed and that 1t is
therefore unconstitutional and void, 1t was
contended by counsel that this is an in
dependent act neither amending nor re-
pealing any other section OF the statute,
except such portions of the law as may
be in direct conflict with the later enact
ment, which are repealed by implication.
1t was admitted that acts which purport
TO amend former enactments must con-
tain such previously enacted sections and
must repeal them. This, however. was de-
clared TO be an Independent act, insofar
as IL conflicts with the law requiring all
buildings TO be within four miles of the
capital, IL repeats by implication that law
so far as it relates to the medical college.
II was denied that the act was broader
than its title. The title recites that the
money is 10 be appropriated for lahora-
tory building, and the body of the act
provides that the structure shall be
known as the laboratory building. 1t pro-
vides further, however. that it may be
used for administration and other pur-
poses, but all these are within the gem
eTal scope of the proposed legislation.