The Alaska citizen., 1916-10-30
LAW IS INSTITUTIONAL 1 SUBJECTS NOT UNDER
 TITLE OF ACT.

Charles F.. Bunnell held that thr
 .isht-h -hUM lu~ passed by the last legislature in the sections in re gard 10 placer mining. is null and lo.t The judge reached the con.
 clu-iun that that portion of the law
 was unconstitutional because il eui- brRCre more than onr subject and also because it contained subjects not expressed In the title. The case was that Of the United | States vs. Sylvester Howell and Jen.
 nle Cleveland. They were charged { with a violation of the provisions
 of the statute in that they worked one Robert Booth ten hours in the drift on q placer mine on Wood chopper creek
 The parties were indicted by the grand jury in the July session os the Ruby court. On motion of the | defendant and the consent of the 1 United States district attorney, the case was transferred to Fairbanks. l The defendants then demurred to the | indictment and the decision o&5udGt. Dunnell upholds the demurrer. The judge pointed out in the de. lo;n nt Nf hn Y. perlenced by the legislature in the ] making of the laws under the pro, vision that not more than one sub feet is included under the title. The | courts have always been lenient 1 where the question of appropriate | ness of the title was concerned. IL Is only when the title 50 far violates 1 the provisions of the act as to make 1 1t impossible 10 sustain the same l that the act Is declared unconstitu. 1 tional
 According tothe decision of the 1 judge, this eight-hour law provides 1 only for persons engaged in metalli- ferrous lode mining in the enacting 1 clause. That Is, the title contains 1 only a reference to that sort of min 1 ing Then farther on in the body | of the act. both In the act of 1913 I and the amendatory act of 1915. other
 kinds of employment are specified. The judge points out and dwells
 upon the phrase "at coke ovens," as an example of the act.
 Yet the act itself limits in scope by the words providing, however, 1 that this act applies to metalliferous lode mining only" Then Judge Bun
 nell summed up the act and gave his decision as follows:
 Tt is thus seen that while the title of the act of 1913 designates eleven kinds of employment which are also enumerated in section l. only eight kinds of employment are de sgnated in section ?. one of which to-wit coke ovens, Is not mentioned ! in the title The fact that the title is broader than the act Is not fatal. but the scope of the act is neces- sarily limited 10 the express limita- tons of the act Itself. So this act, by the provisions in section ?. pro- viding. however. that this act ap- plies to metalllferous lode mining only, Is not capable of amendment
 under the same title 50 as to in.
 clude all kinds of mining and re
 duction processes.
 Following this line of lnvestiga- ton, 1t is found that the title of the amendatory act enumerates eleven
 kinds of employment. while section l would broaden the scope to fifteen. and section 3 extends the number to sixteen by adding underground placer mining. all under the title of the original act.
 The case of Preston vs. Stover. in e7 N w. SIP. is particularly in point.
 It Is stated in the syllabus: "'Under the old. as well as under the present Constitution. where the title to a bill is to amend par ticular section of the act. no amend ment is permissible which is no, germane to the subject matter of the original section
 Tt therefore necessarily follows that the demurrer must be sustained" Therefore In all subjects not GOV cred by the title of the act the law
 is void. Thus the placer operators
 of the district are not bound by this
 law.
 ~0nNy yIvNDrT>IJ JT>C