Custer weekly chronicle. [volume] (Custer City, S.D.) 1890-1931, 1912-02-10

10th, which is far too late to be of AM
benefit to the average farmer.
January "a, 1911.
"Mr. A. R. Denu,
Rapid City, South Dakota.
Dear Sir: I have your several in
quiries in regard to the validity of the
Seed Grain Act, Chapter 1926, Laws o.
1911, and you particularly call my atten.
ton to the title of this Act. You also
ask the following:
docs the Act repeal all former leg.
islation relative to the issuance and dis.
tribution of seed grain4
2-Is the power of the Board of Coun-
ty Commissioners relative to the issu.
ance and distribution of seed grain lin.
tied to the provisions of said Chapters
3.-If both the foregoing questions are
answered in the affirmative, in consider
ing Section Of the Act, and the other
sections relative to the same subject, is
it your opinion that any resident who
makes the proper showing or application
is entitled to the benefits of the Act,
and to the issuance of seed grain to him,
whether such applicant is the owner OF
real estate within the county in which
the application is made, or not?
4.-Notwithstanding the provisions of
the Act, can the lien for seed grain ex-
tend to any land not owned by the
occupant thereof, even though the crop
for which the grain Is bought, be planted
and sown on such other land, unless the
owner Of such land joined in the appli.
cation?
5.-Can the lien for seed grain extend
to any interest in the crop other than
that owned by the applicant, unless the
owner Of such other interest joined in
the application?
Gould the lien for seed grain, even
though dominated by the Statute as
taxes" be superior to chattel or real
estate mortgages made and taken in
good faith PRIOR TO the approval OF the
Act, or even prior to the issuance of the
grain and filing of the contract2
Replying to your inquiry as to the title
of this Act being defective. would
state that this is very close question.
The Constitutional Provision requiring
that no law shall embrace more than
one subject, which shall be expressed
in the title, is literally construed 81 as
not to embarrass legislation and multi
ply the number of bills. have exam
ined this Act carefully, and it is my
that such matters as pertain
to the issuance and distribution of seed
grain are germane to the subject ex-
pressed in the title. In arriving at this
conclusion | have been guided some.
what by the decision of our Supreme
Court reported in Miles VI. Benton, II 5.
ID 450, III which the Court passed upon
the title Of Chapter 81, Laws OF 1891.
The title OF the Act is as follows:
"An Act authorizing civil townships
to sink artesian wells for public pur-
poses, and to issue bonds thereafter"
This Act contains 52 sections many of
which relate to the distribution of water
and contracts for furnishing the same to
owners of land, etc. Our Court, speak
ing through Judge Haney, held that the
law was included within the title.
In State vs.. Smith, AZ n. J. l.. 2U0, the
following language appears:
Upon these cases 1t must be consid-
cred AS settled in this State that when
a Legislative Act is designed to affect
one object it will not be Objectionable
because 1t embraces details aud incidents
comprehended within the object. If the
whole Act in each part be germane to
one plain end and the constitution re.
quirement will be satisfied although
the Act comprehends variety OF incl
dents"
Sutherland on Statutory Construction,
Sec. 95-l03.
On the other hand l have found sew
eral vicious and obnoxious provisions in
section 8 and l0 in regard to taxes and
creating lien upon each and every
Government subdivision of land upon
which said grain was contracted to be
sown, and upon the crop of grain raised
from said seed by the person receiving
seed grain as against all purchasers or
mortgages, whether in good faith or
otherwise. No intimation of such mat
ters is conveyed by the title, and they
are clearly within the Constitutional
Provision. 1t is, therefore, my opinion
that the provisions contained in Section
9 relating to taxes, all of Section l0 and
Section IL are unconstitutional and void
for the above reasons.
Becker vs. Kelley, s. D.-NW. Adv.
Sheet, Nov. 10, 1911. 1872 N. w. 1917.
0
Sheet, Nov. 10, 1911. 1872 N. w. 803.
The provisions in regard to taxes and
creating a lien are also unenforcible
under several other Constitutional Pro-
visions, but the above objection is sutfi-
cient for the purpose of this opinion.
This conclusion, therefore, answers your
fourth, fifth and sixth questions.
AS to whether this Act repeals all
former legislation relative to issuance
and distribution of seed grain, would
state that have carefully compared the
old law, as found in Sections 2799-28O5,
with this Chapter in question, and
agree with you that the old law is en-
tirely superseded and all provisions
thereof repealed by clear implication and
as effectively as though the old provi
sions had been repealed expressly by
the new law. This conclusion answers
your second question as to the power o.
the Board of County Commissioners
being limited to the provisions of this
Chapter in issuing and distributing seed
grain, for if the old law is repealed the
Commissioners derive their only powers
from the new Act.
Answering our third question, it is my
opinion that any resident who makes
the proper showing or application is en-
titled to the benefits of the Act, whether
such applicant is the owner of real estat,
within the county in which the spplica
ton is made, or not.
Section of this Chapter is as fol
lows: "The funds arising from the sal,
of said bonds or warrants should b,
applied exclusively by said Board fol
the purchase of seed grain for residents
of the county who are poor and unable
to procure the same, etc."
Section provides for the application
of such resident and indicated plainly
that the applicant is entitled to the ben
efits of this Act, whether he owns rea
estate upon which the grain will b.
sown or not.
Every truly yours,
"ROYAL G. JOHNSON,