The St. Joseph observer., 1922-04-15

1919. What ithe legislature has done
under these sections could well be
done 80 IS TO cover by general law the
office of grain ana wareh9use COM
missioner, and divers other commits
sioners and officers, appointed by the
governor for the execution of given
Jaws.
Void for This Reason Also
"Sec. of the Act Of 1913 Claws Of
1918 p. 354 ct seqO is void for the fur
ther reason, that such section is not In
Cluded in the title of the act. The title
to this Act reads:
"An Act to repeal article 2 Of chap
ter go of the Revised Statutes of Mis-
souri,, 1909, relating to inspection of
grain and hay, and to enact In lieu
thereof new article to be known as
article 2, relating to inspection and
weighing of grain, abolshing the office
Of railroad and warehouse commission
crs, creating the office of warehouse
commissioner and fixing his powers
and duties, with an emergency clause"
sec. 2S Of Art " of the Constitu
tion requires that the subject of leg
islative act shall be single and clearly
expressed in its title. At an early day
(under the const. Of 1879 this court
in city Of Kansas vs.. Payne, II NJ. l. c.
1G2 said:
Tho object Of the constitutional
DlbNlSlbl was 10 require 50 tltdI an tN-
preston of the subject of the bill In
the title that ii would at once appraise
legislators and others interested of the
precise subject of the proposed legisla-
tion.
The constitution (sayn Judge
Cooley has made the title the con-
elusive index to the Legislative intent
II is no answer to say that the title
might have been more comprehensive
If, in fact, the legislature has not seen
fit to so make it, In state VS.. Wetzel
13O NJ. l. c. Gle, it is said:
Title Like a Guide Beard
The evident object of the provis-
ion of the organic law relative to the
title of an was to have the title like
a guide board. indicate the general
contents of the bill, and contain but
one general subject which might be
expressed in a few or n greater num-
Der of words. If those words only
constitute one general subject; If they
do not mislead as to what the bill con-
tainS; If they are not designed as a
cover to vicious and incongruOus leg
islatiOn, then the title can stand on
its own merits, is an honest title and
does not impinge on constitutional
prohibitions.
And in State vs.. Coffee e Tea Co.
III NJ. /. c. 643 it is crisply stated:
The title to the bill should SO eX-
press the subject Of an act in such
terms that the members OF the Cen
oral Assembly and the people may
not be left in doubt as to what matter
is treated Of Estate V. Burgdoerier,
107 Mo. 30)
To Inform All the People
This general rule differently ex-
pressed, is found throughout our case
law from the earliest cases up to the
present. The purpose of the title to
an act is not only To inform the legis-
latOrs, but the people, and all who
may he Interested IL must be an in
deX of what might be expected in the
body of the bill. Like a sign board
il must indicate the general contents
of the bill 1t must not misload eth
er by false words, or cunning omis-
sions. 1t must not hide things, which
If known, would incur the wrath Of
either the legislators or the interested
public. Deception, in any form.
should and does vitiate those things
in the bill which have been hidden
from view by the title.
What legislator, reading this title,
would for a moment think that in the
body Of the bill was provided an i'm
peachment proceeding? Even if it
could be admitted (Which we do not
admit that the removal of an officer
by the governor is a subject germane
to the creating OF the office, yet 1t
can not be said that when this execu-
tive function is placed in the legislator
by a statutory Impeachment trial, that
such is germane. / dare say that
there was not one legislator out of ten
who participated in the passage Of
this act ever dreamed that this radi-
cal provision was hid away In the
body Of the act. To my mind this