Court Opinion

ID: 9537391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:17:21.48746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:36.265260
License: Public Domain

Ott, J.
August 29, 1957, Milton V. Price made inquiry by telephone of the Evergreen Cemetery Company in Seattle relative to available space for the burial of an infant in that portion of the company’s Washelli Cemetery set *353aside for infants and known as “Babyland.” He was informed that space was available.
The following day, Mr. and Mrs. Price (who are non-Caucasians) drove to the company’s office located on the cemetery property and were advised that “Babyland” was restricted by the corporation rules to the burial of infants of the Caucasian race, but that their infant son could be buried in other sections of the cemetery property which were unrestricted and where both Caucasians and non-Caucasians were buried.
Based upon the company’s refusal to inter their infant in “Babyland,” the Prices instituted this action for damages against the Evergreen Cemetery Company, alleging violation of RCW 68.05.260 (Laws of 1953, chapter 290, § 53, p. 838), which provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any cemetery under this chapter to refuse burial to any person because such person may not be of the Caucasian race.”
The cause was tried to the court, sitting with a jury. From a judgment based upon a verdict for the defendant cemetery company, the plaintiffs appeal.
This appeal raises the constitutionality of RCW 68.05.260, supra, which respondent contends is unconstitutional because its enactment was violative of Art. II, § 19, of the state constitution. With this contention, we agree.
Art. II, § 19, of the state constitution, provides that “No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.”
The title of Laws of 1953, chapter 290, p. 825 (being House Bill No. 85), reads as follows:
“An Act relating to the regulation of cemeteries; adding a new chapter to title 68, RCW, creating a cemetery board and defining its powers and duties; adding a new section to chapter 68.40, RCW; and amending sections 68.36.060, 68.36.070, 68.36.090; and amending sections 68.40.010, 68.40.020, 68.40.030, 68.40.040, 68.40.060, 68.40.070, 68.40.080; and amending sections 68.44.010, 68.44.020, 68.44.030, 68.44-.050, 68.44.070, 68.44.080, 68.44.090, 68.44.100, 68.44.110, 68.44.120, 68.44.160, 68.44.170, RCW, providing penalties, and repealing section 68.44.040, RCW.”
*354The original bill contained fifty-three sections. The first twenty-four sections amended or repealed existing statutory provisions relating to endowment care for cemeteries. The balance of the act was devoted to the establishment of a cemetery fund, and the creation of a cemetery board, to be appointed by the governor, with explicit powers and duties in relation to the fund. The board was charged with the administration and enforcement of RCW 68.04 to 68.44, inclusive. To this bill was appended a floor amendment dealing with civil rights. By the floor amendment, the 1953 act then embraced two unrelated subjects, (1) civil rights, and (2) the endowment care funds of private cemeteries and the creation of a cemetery board.
The subject matter embraced in the above-quoted title adequately apprised the legislature of the contents of the act only as it related to the endowment care fund and its management.
The constitutional mandate is that “No bill shall embrace more than one subject . . . ” In State ex rel. Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle, 32 Wn. (2d) 13, 200 P. (2d) 467 (1948), we said (p. 24):
“The purposes of this constitutional mandate are threefold: (1) to protect and enlighten the members of the legislature against provisions in bills of which the titles give no intimation; (2) to apprise the people, through such publication of legislative proceedings as is usually made, concerning the subjects of legislation that are being considered; and (3) to prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation. . . . ”
In the instant case, the quoted title gave no intimation to the members of the legislature that they were voting either for or against civil rights, as applied to the sale or purchase of a lot in a privately owned cemetery. It is the enactment of this type of “hodge-podge or logrolling legislation” that is prohibited by Art. II, § 19, of the state constitution. State ex rel. Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle, supra. See Power, Inc., v. Huntley, 39 Wn. (2d) 191, 235 P. (2d) 173 (1951).
We hold that RCW 68.05.260 (Laws of 1953, chapter 290, *355§ 53, p. 838) is violative of Art. II, § 19, of the state constitution; hence, it is unconstitutional.
The judgment is affirmed.
Weaver, C. J., Mallery, Hill, Donworth, and Foster, JJ., concur.
Weaver, C. J.
This case was heard En Banc February 26, 1960. In justice to the writer of the foregoing opinion, it should be stated that it was not reassigned to him for opinion until September 20, 1960.