Case Name: The State of Florida ex rel. Attorney-General, Plaintiff in Error, vs. Dennis Burns, Defendant in Error
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1896-06
Citations: 38 Fla. 367
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State of Florida ex rel. Attorney-General, Plaintiff in Error, vs. Dennis Burns, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 367–407

Head Matter:
The State of Florida ex rel. Attorney-General, Plaintiff in Error, vs. Dennis Burns, Defendant in Error.
1. A leading purpose of section 16, Article III, of the Constitution is to prevent the incorporation into one act of legislation of more than one subject and matter properly connected therewith. A further object of the requirement is to avoid surprise or fraud in legislation by means of provisions in bills, of which the titles give no sufficient notice, and to this end a title of an act should fairly apprise not only the members of the Legislature, but the people to be affected, of the subject of legislation being enacted.
3. When the title of an act clearly expresses the whole object of the Legislature, and the provisions in the body of the act are germane to the subject expressed in the title, an essential requirement of the Constitution has been met, but a general subject may become restricted in details in the body of the act by the title, .and where one is so. framed as to indicate that matters connected with the subject, generally considered, are not to be treated of in the bill, it is misleading as to any legislation on such matters.
3. Titles to bills must not be misleading, or tend to avert inquiry as to provisions in acts.
4. Section 16, Article III, of the Constitution is mandatory, and the correct rule is to enforce its restrictions in all cases coming within the mischiefs intended by it to be arrested, while in cases not falling within such mischiefs a liberal construction should obtain in favor of the law-making power.
5. The title of the act of 1895 (Chapter 4513), as it passed the Legislature, is “An act to provide for the creation of the city of Pensacola, now known as the provisional municipality of Pensacola, and for the government of said city of Pensacola, and to provide for the support and maintenance of said government and improvement of said city.” Under the general provisions in the last part of the act provision is made for the appointment by the mayor and confirmation by the council of harbor' master, who shall perform all the duties now performed by harbor masters, as set forth in section 956 of the Revised Statutes. The harbor master of the port of Pensacola had never-been legally associated with the municipal governments, of Pensacola, but has, from the creation of the office in 1866, been appointed by the Governor, and the defendant in error is the Governor’s appointee to said office: Held, That the said provision in the act in reference to the appointment of harbor master by the mayor of the city of Pensacola was not constitutionally enacted.
(Taylor, J,, dissenting).
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Escambia county.
STATEMENT.
The relator on June 24th, 1895, filed in the Circuit Court of Escambia county an information in which he alleged the passage of the act of the Legislature of the State of Florida, entitled “An act to provide for the creation of the city of Pensacola, now known as the provisional municipality of Pensacola, and for the government of said city of Pensacola, and to provide for its officers and their terms of office, and to provide for the support and maintenance of said government and improvement of said city,” and its approval by the Governor on May 27th, 1895; that such act designated certain named persons as Commissioners of Election to conduct an election for Mayor and Aldermen and other officers of said city, and to declare the result of the election; that under said act an election was held on June 4th, 1895, and at it were elected as Mayor and Aldermen certain persons named in the information, who were duly thereafter declared elected by the said Commissioners, and that such persons were duly qualified and eligible, and on June 7th, 1895, took the oath of office and were respectively inducted into the offices of Mayor and Aldermen; that said act provided for the appointment by the Mayor and confirmation by the said Board of Aldermen of a Harbor Master with the powers, duties and emoluments mentioned in the act; that such Board of Aldermen duly and lawfully elected the relator as such Harbor Master; that he was qualified and eligible therefor, and before the filing of the information took the oath of office prescribed by law and the ordinances of said city, and gave the bond prescribed by said ordinances and became qualified to hold the said office; that before the said election and qualification of relator, the respondent, Dennis Burns, was the incumbent of said office under appointment by the Governor and confirmation by the Senate of the State of Florida, and that the relator has made demand uponthe respondent to surrender the said office, its property, insignia, franchises, etc., but that the respondent has refused, and still enjoys and uses such property, insignia, franchises, etc. The prayer is the usual one in quo . warranto proceedings.
Respondent, by attorneys, filed a demurrer to the information upon the grounds: "1st. That said alleged act of the Legislature of the State* of Florida, entitled ‘ ‘An act to provide for the creation of the city of Pensacola, now known as the provisional municipality of Pensacola, and to provide for its officers and their terms of office, and to provide for the support and maintenance of said government and improvement of said city,” is unconstitutional and void because the title of the same was materially altered and changed after it had passed both houses of the Legislature and been signed by the officers thereof, and before its signature by the Governor, by the insertion therein of the said words “and to provide for its officers and their terms of office,” and immediately after the word “Pensacola” as last occurring in said title. 2d. The said alleged act is in violation of section 27, Article III, of the Constitution of the State of Florida. 3d. The said alleged act is in violation of section 16, Article III, of the Constitution of the State of Florida, in that it embraces more than one subject and matter properly connected therewith, i. e., the creation of a city and its government, and the amendment of the laws relating to the State office of Harbor Master. 4th. The section of said alleged act relating to the said office of Harbor Master is in violation of section 16, Article III, of the Constitution of the State of Florida: a. Because it seeks to amend the laws of the State relating to the State office of Harbor Master, without expressing same in the title of the act. 5. Because it seeks to give to the said Harbor Master appointed by the Mayor of the city of Pensacola juris diction and authority outside of the territorial limits of the city without expressing such subject in the title of the act. After argument the Circuit Court sustained the demurrer and (the relator not desiring to amend) dismissed the information.
The relator has sued out a writ of error to this court, and assigns as error: 1. That the court erred in sustaining the demurrer of the respondent, Dennis Burns, to the information in this cause. 2. That the court -erred in rendering judgment against the informant and dismissing the said cause.
Jno. Eagan, C. B. Parkhill, and Blount & Blount, for Plaintiff in Error.
We consider only the first assignment of error, for if the demurrer to the information was properly sustained, the judgment consequent upon such sustaining was proper.
1. We do not discuss this ground of the demurrer for it is covered adversely to the defendant by the case of the State ex rel. versus L. Hilton Green, 36 Fla.
2. This ground is as follows: “The said alleged act is in violation of section 27, Article 3, Constitution of the State of Florida.” That section is as follows:
"Section 27. The Legislature shall provide for the selection by the people or appointment by the Governor of all State and county officers not otherwise provided for by this Constitution and fix by law their duties and compensation.”
What is meant by the demurrer, is, that section 15 of the act of May 27, 1895, (pamphlet acts page 362) is inoperative as far as it seeks to cause the office of Har bor Master of the city of Pensacola to be filled by appointment of the Mayor and Council, because such office is a State office and its incumbent must, under the Constitution, be appointed by the Governor or elected by the people.
In determining the test as to whether an office is a State office, and whether it can be made a city office, it is well to eliminate some of the things which are not tests.
1. It is obvious that the source from which the commission emanates or from which the power and authority is derived, is not the test, because all officers, State, county and municipal, derive their authority from the sovereign, the State of Florida, and are therefore officers of the State. 13 Fla. 693, 694
2. It is obvious that the source of appointment is-not a test, because under the constitutional provision in question the Governor may appoint or the people elect county officers as well as State officers, and because in the absence of constitutional limitations as to' the depositary of the power of appointment, it lies with the Legislature to determine where such power shall be placed. Fox vs. McDonnell 101 Ala. 51.
3. It is obvious if there be nothing in the nature of an office or in the constitutional mention or description of it making it a State office, an attempt by the Legislature to make it so, even though such attempt be successful, could not prevent a succeeding Legislature from making the same office a county office, or a city office. Without limitation by the Constitution or by the nature of the office, the legislative power would be absolute.
Applying these doctrines to this case, the question to be solved does net seem difficult.
If the Legislature before 1895 had made the office of Harbor Master a State office, the mere fact of having done so does not prevent the same power from changing its will and making it a city office.
There is no mention in the Constitution of the office •of harbor master and therefore there is no constitutional denomination of the office as a State office which stands in the way of the Legislature’s making It a city office.
Then, unless there be something inherent in the nature of the office itself making it a State office, the act under consideration making it a city office is valid.
Prom what we have said it results that there can be no test as to whether an office is or not a State office, hut the duties of that office. If the duties be to the State as a State, or to all the citizens of the State, or •duties in which all the citizens have an interest other than sentimental, then the office is a State office, otherwise it is not. Of course in this test territorial limits play an important part, but only as defining the boundaries within which the beneficiaries of the duties reside, and not as imposing a limitation upon the place of performance of such duties. In other words, the duties need not be performed in or over the whole of the State territory, but they must be in the interest of all the inhabitants of that territory.
The illustration as to the officers of the State penitentiary (13 Fla. 695) who are localized, but whose duties appertain to the people of the whole State, is apt .here.
The harbor master does not fall within the limits of -this definition. His functions are confined to a locality -embracing but a small part of the State. They are not in behalf of the State, nor of all the citizens of the State. The improper or proper exercise of them does not in the least concern, for instance, a citizen of Jackson or Osceola counties. Both his function and his territory are strictly local. He does not exercise a State function in any sense, the reason for his appointment being the protection of the interests of those interested in vessels which may bring their trade to the city of Pensacola, and he simply exercises a police jurisdiction. Though this jurisdiction may be larger than a city, it is less than a State and in no wise connected with State affairs or the interest of the public- or of the State.
The authorities cited below by the defendant, holding that certain officers appointed by municipalities, were State officers, are not in point here. They simply announce the well settled doctrine that a city liassome functions relating to its corporate capacity and some functions relating to a governmental capacity, and: that an officer representing its governmental capacity-can not by his negligence or mismanagement make irresponsible in damages, while an officer representing-its corporate capacity can do so. For instance: It is. held that a police officer or police judge or fire commissioners or members of the fire department are State-officers in the sense that they exercise governmental functions, and that, therefore, a suit for damages, against the city for their negligence will not lie. This, is, however, different fro m establishing their status as. State officers in the sense used in our Constitution. If they were such in that sense, then the Governor would, have to appoint or the people elect every policeman iru tile city, every fireman, every sanitary inspector, because all of these represent the duties of the State towards the citizens, and in that sense they are State officers. These authorities are, moreover, against the defendant, because while the courts held that they were State officers, yet they were appointed by a municipality and are recognized as subordinates to the municipality and were simply held to exercise governmental functions for the purpose of relieving the city from liability. Applying these authorities to this case, they would simply go to show that if the harbor master was appointed by the city and exercised governmental functions, the city could not be held responsible for his misfeasance or malfeasance.
There can be no question that the functions of the harbor master being local and protective of the interests of the city, the Legislature would have the power to make him a city officer and have him appointed by the city council if it saw fit, if the duties were all performed within the limits of the city.
The defendant, however, says that this may be true, but that part of his functions are exercised outside of the limits of the city of Pensacola, and that, therefore, he can not be a city officer, nor owe his appointment to the city.
There are several answers to this:
A. That the assumed fact does not appear:
B. That if it does appear, it furnishes no reason why such extra territorial jurisdiction should not be exercised by the city appointee:
C. That if he could not exercise extra territorial powers, he could exercise within the city the powers bestowed upon him, and the act would be sustained to that extent:
a. The defendant says that the court will take judicial notice that the city of Pensacola does not include the whole harbor of Pensacola, and since the jurisdic tion of the harbor master extends over the whole harbor, part of that jurisdiction must be without the limits of the city.
As we understand the law, the courts will take judicial notice of the existence of cities, but not of their territorial limits or of whether a particular place is within such limits. We do not care, however, to waste time on this contention, for the fact is that a large part of the harbor of Pensacola is outside of the city of Pensacola. If the court, however, takes judicial notice of the fact, it will also take notice that much of the harbor is within the limits and that this portion includes all the territory devoted to trade and commerce, the business houses and merchants, all the wharves at which vessels, located by the harbor master, lie, nine-tenths of the anchorage of vessels while lying within the harbor of Pensacola and more than nine-tenths of the territory over which the duties of the harbor master are exercised. See R. S. Fla. sec. 956.
b. If, however, the court knows judicially that the territorial limits of the city are not co-extensive with the territory over which the possible duties of the harbor master may be exercised, still it does not follow that the act is invalid. It is obvious that the place where the duties are performed is immaterial.
They can be done entirely extra territorially. The Minister at the Court of St. James, all of whose duties are done in England, is none the less an officer of the United States.
The Legislature of Florida could make an officer to superintend the selection of United States lands, all of whose duties should be done at Washington. Under the quarantine laws of 1869, Chap. 1714. secs. 2 and 4, city quarantine boards might have officers in quarantine stations, or lazarettoes outside of the city boundaries. As some northern cities have, there might be municipal fiscal agents or officers permanently residing and operating outside of such limits, etc., etc.
And, intra territorially, the localization of the work done by the officer, would not present any test as to whether he was or was not a State officer. The judges of this court are localized at Tallahassee, as are the cabinet officers, and yet clearly they are State officers.
It is well settled that corporations may hold lands extra territorially. 2 Dil. on Municipal Corp. sec. 565; 1 Dil. on Municipal Corp. sec. 103; and they may also exercise police jurisdiction extra territorially when the Legislature so declares, as was done in this case. State vs. Franklin, 40 Kan. 410; State vs. Franklin, 19 Pac. Rep. 801; Coldwater vs. Tucker, 36 Mich. 474; Van Hock vs. Selma, 70 Ala. 361, 15 A. & E. Encyc. 1006 and 1007.
Nor is it any objection to considering him a municipal officer that some of the functions to be performed by him might be for or of benefit to adjoining counties or to the State.
Tax assessors, sheriffs, county commissioners, etc., perform important duties for the State, but are nevertheless county officers. 13 Fla. 695, 696.
There would be no harbor master if there was no city. He is appointed to subserve the purposes of its trade and commerce. He is master of the harbor, but solely because the functions which he performs are necessary for the city. It having the sole interest, should have the power of appointment, it being entirely within the jjower of the Legislature, in the absence of constitutional limitation, to determine in what functionary tile power of appointment shall rest. Fox vs. McDonnell, 101 Ala. 51.
The Legislature has exercised its power in this matter and no other authority in the State can dispute the-propriety of that exercise.
c. As we have before said, if the court can take-judicial notice of the limits of the city of Pensacola, it will know that those limits include the locations of wharves, the business and the vessels, as hereinbeforeset forth and even though it should find that there-had been no proper legislation conferring the duties of' the State harbor master upon the municipal harbormaster as to the territory outside of the limits of the city, yet it must find that the great bulk of his duties-could be done inside of the limits and that the Legislature intended that those duties should be devolved upon the municipal officer. We have then duties protecting citizens of Pensacola and its commerce to be performed within its territorial limits and there can be-no reason in holding that such duties can not be performed by a municipal officer.
If this be the correct view, then the court woulcL overrule the demurrer, because it reaches to a denial of the right of the officer to exercise any functions-now exercised by the defendant, and it will declare that as to the functions exercised by the defendant within the territorial limits of the city of Pensacola,, he is usurping the right of the relator.
It is a usual and common thing for a court to-declare an act inoperative as to something outside the power of the Legislature and sustain that which is inside of the power of the Legislature, and in this case it is too clear for argument that it is entirely withim the power of the Legislature to declare that the func tions of the harbor master within the limits of the-city of Pensacola may be performed by an officer of the city of Pensacola.
3. It is unnecessary to discuss this ground of the defendant’s demurrer, because it is based upon the idea that the subject matter of the act is double because it embraces legislation relating to city affairs proper and also legislation relating to State officers.
It is clear that if the harbor master is not a State-officer but can be made a city officer, then the-whole subject matter of the act relates to municipal affairs and the act is not double. On the other hand, if the harbor master is a State officer and can not be made a municipal officer, then the act as to him is void upon the second ground of the demurrer and it is useless to discuss its effect in any other point of view.
4. This ground of the demurrer, is, that that portion, of the act providing for harbor master is in violation, of section 16, Art. 3, Constitution of the State of Florida.
a. Because it seeks to amend the laws of Florida relating to the State officer of harbor master without-expressing the same in the title of the act.
b. Because it seeks to give to the city harbor master appointed by the Mayor of the city of Pensacola, jurisdiction and authority outside of the territorial limits of the city without expressing such title in the. act.
Both of these grounds of demurrer relates to the form of accomplishing that which the Legislature intended to accomplish.
The substance has already been discussed.
A. This has been practically disposed of, because if the harbor master could be made a municipal officer, then he clearly falls within the scope of the title to create the city of Pensacola and to provide for its' gov■ernment, etc.
B. This ground, we think, is equally untenable. As we have already shown, it is entirely within the power •of the Legislature to confer upon cities extra territo - rial jurisdiction either by extending the territory so that the city shall cover it, or by extending the police .jurisdiction without any extension of the territory. In this case there is not any attempt on the part of the city to extend its territory, but simply an attempt •of the Legislature to extend the police jurisdiction. The authorities above cited show thao this can be done. The only question here is whether it can be done under the title. That, too, seems without ‘doubt.
The title to create the city of Pensacola was sufficient to deal not only with the powers of the city, but also with its limits, and under such title it would be competent to make the diameter of the city 10 miles •or 30 miles or more or less. None of the incidents ¡need be expressed in the title. The title says it creates the city of Pensacola. All the matters properly •connected with that creation, among which would clearly be the definition and jurisdictions of the- city and its officers, would properly come, and it is not required to state such definition in the title. This view is fully sustained by the case of the State ex rel versus Duval Commissioners, 23 Fla. 504. In that case the Legislature under the title “An Act to establish the Municipality of Jacksonville,” abolished the charters of Springfield, Lavilla and Fairfield and embraced their territory within the limits of Jacksonville. The same point was made there as here and the court decided that the title was broad enough to cover the incorporation of this territory into the city and the repeal of the charters of the other cities. This decision covers not only the point that the embracing of other territory in the city limits can be made under this general title, but also the point raised by counsel that the office of State harbor master could not be abolished without a statement of the intent to make such abolition in the title, since this case decides that the repeal of an act inconsistent with the act then being enacted need not be expressed in the title.
Upon this point see also Lake vs. Palmer, 18 Fla. 510, 512.
In this case it appeared that one act repealed another. The second made new and different officers, without mentioning the repeal of the first or without, mentioning the officers provided for in the first, and the court said that the destruction of the offices and the repeal of the former act was merely an incidental effect of the second act and did not violate the Constitution.
See also directly upon this point, Fox vs. McDonnell, 101 Ala. 51.
The defendant, however, says that though the title of the act to create the city of Pensacola might have been broad enough to permit extra territorial extension, yet that limitation is made in the title itself by the words “Now known as the Provisional Municipality of Pensacola,” and that that confines the limits to. those of the present municipality.
They cite as bearing upon this the case of State vs. Blair, 17 S. E. Rep. decided by the Supreme Court of Georgia. In that case the title of the act was-“Am Act to make a new charter for the city of Columbus.” That necessarily implied that the city should remain the same, but that the powers conferred in the charter should change. There is no such limitation in this act. The word to “create” show that there is to be •entirely new and original legislation, without reference to any former legislation, or to any formerly existing state of affairs. There, is no restriction of the territorial limits to the limits of the former provisional municipality. Besides, following the words “Provisional municipality,” occur the words “to provide for the government of the same and to provide for the maintenance and support,” etc. These words show clearly that the laws, rules and status of the provisional municipality was not to govern, but that the Legislature was engaging in an aborigine proceeding with reference to the city of Pensacola.
The Ga. case, moreover, simply declares that the Legislature had not the power under such title to extend the territorial limits. It does not declare that the territorial limits being the same, it would not have the power under such a title to give extra territorial j urisdiction to some of the officers of the municipality. It seems clear that the court could not have so decided, because there is embraced in the new charter the idea of new powers, new functions and new jurisdiction. The conferring of these things is what was done in this case and is entirely covered by the provision in the title to provide for the government of the same.
But, as we said in another branch of this case, if the title of the act was not broad enough to cover the .granting of jurisdiction to the harbor master outside of rhe territorial limits, it is broad enough to cover such jurisdiction inside the territorial limits, and the court will simply eliminate from Ms powers those which the title is not extensive enough to cover and will allow Mm to retain those covered by the title. All the functions of the harbor master within the limits of the city of Pensacola may be performed by an officer of the city of Pensacola, and it is too clear for argument that as to such officer a title to create the city of Pensacola and to provide for its government is amply broad.
Mallory & Maxwell, for Defendant in Error.

Opinion:
Mabry, C. J.:
The title of the act, Chapter 4513, laws of 1895, as we must-consider it, is "An act to provide for the creation of the city of Pensacola, now known as the provisional municipality of Pensacola, and for the government of said city of Pensacola, and to provide for the support and maintenance of said government and improvement of said'city." In the title of the enrolled bill signed by the Governor, and as published in the acts of the Legislature, the additional words "and to provide for its officers and their terms of office" are found, but we have held in the case of State ex rel. vs. Green, 36 Fla. 154, 18 South. Rep. 334, that, as shown by the journals of. the Legislature, the additional words were not in the title when the act passed the two houses of the legislative branch of the government, and could not be considered as a part of the title of the act. The body of the act contains 155 sections with general provisions, and by the first section the inhabitants of the city of Pensacola are created corporate by the name and style of the city of Pensacola. The second section divides the powers of government into legislative, executive and judicial; the legislative consisting of a Board of Aldermen, the executive of a Mayor with executive boards, and the judicial of a police court. Certain officers and servants of the corporation are provided for, such as comptroller, treasurer, tax collector, assessor, city attorney, and physician, judge of the police court, clerk, and marshal. Provisions in the act clearly show that the newly created city was constructed upon the foundation of an existing municipality. The first section, already referred to, provides that the inhabitants of the city of Pensacola are hereby created corporate, and section 124 enacts that the boundaries of the city shall, until changed as provided by statute, remain as now established by ordinance. There is nothing in the 155 sections of the act, excluding the general provisions, extending the powers of government beyond the scope and already defined limits of, the municipal grants to the existing provisional municipality. The title of the act pointedly directs attention to the existing municipality, its terms, in part, being ' 'an act to provide for the creation of the city of Pensacola, now known as the provisional municipality of Pensacola." In 1885 the Legislature passed an act, with certain, amendments, for the dissolution of municipal corporations under circumstances therein stated, and to provide provisional governments for the same, and under this act the city of Pensacola became a provisional municipality. There was passed in 1893 an act to fix the number and provide for the election of certain municipal officers of the provisional municipality of Pensacola, and to prescribe their terms of office, and regulate their compensation and duties. By this act certain designated officers for the provisional municipality were elective,, and provision was made for their elecr tion. Such was the legal status of the municipal government of Pensacola when the act of 1895, supra, was passed. Among the general provisions of this act, and the latter part of a paragraph in reference to the oath of office of the city officers and their eligibility to office, the following is found, mz: "The wharves shall be under control of the council consistent with existing-law and vested rights, and there shall be elected by the board first elected under this act, at the first meeting in the month of June, one thousand eight hundred! and ninety-five, or as soon thereafter as is possible, and every four years thereafter, one harbor commissioner. Such commissioner shall perform such duties as the preservation of deep water in the harbor may require, and shall in all matters protect the city's interest, and require the proper discharge of ballast, ashes, refuse, sinking of timber, binders or other lumber or timber or other refuse in the harbor, either in or outside of the city limits, as may be provided by ordinance, and shall from date of his election perform all duties now performed by, and shall be invested with all the authority now conferred on the public custodian of lost timber and lumber, receiving for his services such fees as are now allowed by law to said custo dian, whose duties from the passage of this act,. and his election, shall be performed by said harbor commissioner. At the same time and for the same term of office (four years) as provided above for the harbor commissioner, a harbor master shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council, who shall perforin all the duties now performed by harbor master as set forth in section 956 of the published edition of the Revised Statutes, and from the date of his appointment shall possess all powers and have charge of all dulies, and be subject to all restrictions, and secure :as compensation such fees as are now provided by laty ior harbor master." Section 956 of the Revised Statutes relate to the duties of harbor masters appointed <by the Governor for the different harbors of the State. There is a clause in the act repealing all acts or parts of acts in conflict with it. The question involved in the present case is confined to the office of harbor master, the right to which is asserted by virtue of the provision quoted. The harbor master for the port of Pensacola has not, prior to the act in question, owed his appointment or election to the municipality of Pensacola, either under its original charter, or as a provisional municipality. He has not only not been legally associated with the municipal governments of Pensacola, but has been disassociated therefrom. Provision was made in 1866 for the office of harbor master for the port of Pensacola, and for his appointment by the Governor, and from that time down to the act of 1895 the office has been filled by the Governor, by and with the consent of the Senate. The defendant in error is the Governor's appointee to the office, and he was in office when the act was passed, and continues to hold the same. In our opinion the provision in the municipal act of 1895 relating to the appointment of harbor master has not been constitutionally enacted, and the attempt to pass it offends the 16th section of Article III of the Constitution. This section provides that "each law enacted in the Legislature shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title; and no law shall be amended or revised by reference to its title only; but in such case the act, as revised, or section, as amended, shall be re-enacted and published at length." Under this provision the title of an act becomes essentially important as it has the effect to control the provisions of an act and restrict them to matters properly connected with the subject expressed in the title. We have held' in the case referred to (State ex rel. vs. Green) that the title to the act in question, after eliminating the added words, was sufficient to authorize the provisions in the body of the act in reference to the election of municipal officers for the city. The right to the office of alderman under the new charter was involved in that case, and no doubt existed as to the creation of such an office being strictly municipal in character. One of the leading purposes •of section 16, Article III, of the Constitution is to prevent the incorporation into one act of more than one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and thereby to arrest the abuse of what has been called * 'log-rolling" legislation. The subject of the act must be expressed in the title, but matters of detail, or matters properly connected with the subject need not be there stated. When the title clearly expresses the whole object of the Legislature, and the provisions in the body of the act are germane to, or are properly connected with, the subject expressed in the title, an essential requirement of the constitutional provision has been met. If serious doubt exists as to whether matter found in the bill is properly connected with the subject expressed in the title, the courts decide in favor of the legislative power, and sustain the bill. County Commissioners of Duval County vs. City of Jacksonville, 36 Fla. 196, 18 South. Rep. 339. A general subject may, however, become restricted in details in the body of the act by the title. It is said in State ex rel. vs. Palmes, 23 Fla. 620, 3 South. Rep. 171, that "when the title is general the Legislature must be considered as put upon notice as to anything in the bill germane to the subject expressed. The Legislature may, however, make titles as restrictive as it pleases, and where one is so framed as to indicate that certain matters naturally connected with or germane to the subject, generally considered, are not to be treated of in the bill, it is misleading as to any legislation on such matters." It is well established that titles to bills must not be misleading or tend to avert inquiry as to the provisions in acts. The cases cited in Webster vs. Powell, 36 Fla. 703, 18 South. Rep. 441, bearing on the invalidity of acts having false or misleading titles, need not be further discussed, but they will be found to fully sustain the doctrine stated. A further object of the constitutional requirement is to avoid surprise or fraud in legislation by means of provisions in bills, of which the titles give no sufficient notice, and to tliis end a title should fairly apprise not only the members of the Legislature, but the people to be affected, of the subject of legislation being enacted. State ex rel. vs. Green, and Webster vs. Powell, supra; State ex rel. vs. Hocker, 36 Fla. 358, 18 South. Rep. 767. The provision of the Constitution referred to is mandatory, and the correct rule is to enforce its restrictions in all cases coming within the mischiefs intended by it to be arrested, while in cases not falling within such mischiefs a liberal construction should obtain in favor of the law-making power. The office of harbor master is not provided for by the Constitution, but exists entirely by virtue of legislative enactment. Judge Cooley says (People vs. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44, text 103, S. C. 9 Am. Rep. 103): 'For those classes of officers whose duties are general — such as the judges, the officers of militia, the superintendents of police, of quarantine, and of ports, by whatever name called — -provision has, to a greater or less extent, been made by State appointment. But these are more properly State than local officers; they perform duties for the State in localities, as collectors of internal revenue do for the .general government; and a local authority for their appointment does not make them local officers when the nature of their duties is essentially general." It may be conceded that it is competent for the Legislature by proper legislation to make the harbor master of the port of Pensacola appointive by the mayor of the city of Pensacola, with the consent of the council, but such authority can not be classed among the usual municipal powers. It would be a special grant of power to the municipality. Harbors and docks connected therewith may be regulated by Congress, but in the absence of such regulation the State can exercise control over the same. We do not deem it necessary to decide whether, under a title to an act to ere. .ate an original municipality and provide for its government, support and improvement, a provision for the •appointment of a harbor master, would be matter properly connected with the subject expressed in the title. Conceding that such a provision would be germane to such a subject expressed in the title, it is not •decisive of the present case in favor of the plaintiff in error, for the reason that the act in question has not the title stated. The title is to create the city of Pensacola, now known as the provisional municipality of Pensacola, and, as pointed out, the latter was an existing municipality with usual municipal powers, but having, no control whatever over the appointment of the harbor master for the port of Pensacola. The-terms used in the title, "now known as the provisional municipality of Pensacola," are calculated to mislead as to, and avert attention from, the provision in the-act in relation to the appointment of harbor master— a matter entirely beyond the scope of the powers of the existing provisional municipality. It can not be-said. in our judgment, that parties in interest, and especially the incumbent of the office of harbor master, were fairly apprised by the title given to the act that matters of such special character, in no way connected with the former municipality, would be gone into. The title with the clause in it is calculated to avert attention from any proposition to subject the harbormaster of the port of Pensacola to municipal control,, in that it directed attention to the creation of a city, then known as the provisional municipality of Pensacola, which in no way controlled the appointment of the harbor master.
The title to the act involved in the case of Brooks vs. Hydorn, 76 Mich. 273, 42 N. W. Rep. 1122, was "an act to provide for the election of two justices of the peace, and for the appointment of a justice clerk and room for holding justice court, in and for the city of Grand Rapids, and to define their jurisdiction, and to fix their compensation, and to repeal an act entitled, 'an act to provide for the election of four justices of the peace in and for the city of Grand Rapids, and to-define their jurisdiction, and fix their compensation,' approved March 11, 1881, and all acts and parts of acts-in anywise contravening the provisions of this act." At the time the act was passed there were four justices of the peace in office in the city of Grand Rapids* and the act legislated two of them out of of office. The-opinion says: "No one, in reading the title of this act, •while it was a bill before the Legislature, would have-been apprised that the offices of respondent and Justice Hughes were not only to be abolished, but that, they were to be deprived of holding the same after the fourth day of July, 1889. If one can gather from the-clause in the title in relation to the repeal of the act of 1881, w'hich provided for four justices, that the intention and purport of the bill might be to decrease the-number of justices from four to two, yet there is not-the slightest hint therein that any of the justices already in office should be deprived of their terms, or, if so, which one, or two, of them was thus to be legislated out of office. The notice in the title, which the-Constitution imperatively requires, was therefore not given, and the plain purpose of the constitutional mandate evaded and violated." The title of the act con sidered in the case of State ex rel. vs. Commissioners of Duval County, 23 Fla. 483, 3 South. Rep. 193, was-. "an act to establish the municipality of Jacksonville,, provide for its government and prescribe its jurisdiction and powers," and in fixing the boundaries, territory occupied by two existing municipalities, and part of that occupied by a third, was included, and the charters of the municipalities whose territory had been, absorbed were repealed. It was held that the repeal of the charters was matter properly connected with the subject expressed in the title. The decision was. correct, but the principle decided by it does not conflict, in our opinion, with the conclusion in the case before us. The title of the act mentioned is ample to authorize the establishment of a municipality with all-usual municipal jurisdiction and powers, and it has no< restrictive or misleading features about it. In this respect it materially differs from the title to the act of 1895 creating the city of Pensacola.
Our judgment is that the demurrer was properly sustained on the ground that the provision in the act in reference to the appointment of harbor master violates section 16, Article III, of the Constitution, and the judgment of the court will, therefore, be affirmed.