Court Opinion

ID: 9545009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:04:37.119003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:52.901971
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice HARNSBERGER
concurring in the result only.
I am able to concur only in the result. The majority opinion finds the title of the act does not indicate an intention to increase the excise tax on malt liquors.
It is true the title says nothing about increasing the excise tax, but it was sufficient that the title clearly expressed the intention to amend and re-enact § 12-5, W.S. 1957, relating to the excise tax on alcoholic liquors. It was immaterial whether the bill would increase, decrease, or even abolish the tax altogether.
More importantly, however, the finding there was nothing in the title indicating an intention to deal with the excise tax on malt liquors, is subject to challenge.
Section 12-2, W.S.1957, defines alcoholic liquor as meaning spirituous or fermented fluid intended for beverage purposes containing more than four percentum of alcohol by volume, and malt beverage to mean any fluid manufactured from malt wholly or in part or from any substitute therefor containing more than one percentum of alcohol by volume. It also provides that the words “intoxicating liquor,” “alcoholic liquor,” “alcoholic beverage,” and “spirituous liquor” shall be construed as synonymous in meaning and definition. Thus, malt liquors are so defined as to make them alcoholic liquors. As such they are to be construed synonymously with intoxicating liquor, alcoholic beverage, and spirituous liquor. It must follow that the act, both as originally titled and as amended by using the words, “relating to the excise tax on alcoholic liquors and the possession of untaxed intoxicating liquors, by holders of liquor licenses or perimts so as to prohibit the importation or transportation into or within the State of Wyoming of untaxed intoxicating liquors by any person; and providing for enforcement thereof and a penalty for violation thereof,” directly and clearly referred to the excise taxing of malt liquors as well as the excise taxing of wine, brandy, whisky, gin, rum, or other liquids and components containing more than four percentum of alcohol by volume.
It cannot, therefore, be said that the title of the original or amendatory act failed to clearly express the subject of the bill dealing with an increase in the excise tax on malt liquors. Furthermore, the reference in the original title as well as its amendment to § 12-5, which expressly deals with the imposition of an excise tax on malt liquors, was a sufficient compliance with Art. 3, § 24, of the Wyoming Constitution insofar as amendment of the excise tax on malt liquor was concerned.
It must, however, be acknowledged that the addition of the identification card matter, both in the title and in the body of the bill, injected a subject foreign to excise taxation and, therefore, was in violation of Art *1033,§ 24 of the Wyoming Constitution. As pointed out in Bell v. Gray, Wyo., 377 F.2d 924, 926, “a law void in part is not necessarily void as a whole and whether a legislative act should be declared unconstitutional as a whole when a portion thereof is invalid depends primarily upon the intention of the legislature.” In this case the legislative history of the act gives such strong indication that neither the excise tax portion nor the identification card part would have been enacted without the other, that it is beyond judicial province to strike down the unconstitutional and leave standing the constitutional. Therefore, the entire act must be held void.