Opinion ID: 2616865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: title of the act

Text: The respondents argue that the 1961 act (Laws of 1961, ch. 211) violates Const. art. 2, § 19 which reads: No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title. Even the briefest examination of chapter 211 will clearly show it embraces only one subject, namely, conspiracy against the state, any county, city, town, district, or other municipal corporation, or any department or agency thereof. That subject is expressed in the title. The real objection is the respondents' claim the title is too broad. They object to the words, increasing penalties for certain collusion; amending section 3, chapter 12, Laws of 1921 and RCW 9.18.140. The words, increasing penalties for certain collusion, are certainly within the act. The penalty for conspiracy against the designated entities was greatly increased, from a gross misdemeanor to a felony with punishment by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both. That was certainly an increased penalty. An amendment removed part of the act as it was originally written and introduced. Sections 2 and 3 of the original bill were deleted and, therefore, RCW 9.18.140 was not amended. That proposed amendment was the essence of section 2. Section 3 was merely a severability clause which became surplusage when section 2 was stricken. The title was not changed at the same time and, therefore, included more than the act.  This situation gave rise to the claim the title was too broad. [5, 6] We held in Cudihee v. Phelps, 76 Wash. 314, 136 P. 367 (1913) that too broad a title was not a violation of article 2, section 19. In Howlett v. Cheetham, 17 Wash. 626, 635, 50 P. 522 (1897), we said: ... a title may be broader than the statute and still be good as to the subject it fairly indicates. Upon the authority of those cases we hold the portions of the title which were inadvertently left in after the bill itself was amended are surplusage, and therefore, the statute now known as RCW 9.22.040 is valid as against any attack based upon the title.