Ohio." No bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title."* Kentucky.-"No law enacted by the General Assembly shall relate to more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." Louisiana." Every law enacted by the legislature shall embrace but one object, and that shall be expressed in the title."‡ The evils which these provisions are intended to prevent, are well stated by the Supreme Court of Louisiana. "The title of an act often afforded no clue to its contents. Important general principles were found placed in acts private or local in their operations; provisions concerning matters of practice or judicial proceedings, were sometimes included in the same statute with matters entirely foreign to them; the result of which was, that on many important subjects the statute law had become almost unintelligible, as they whose duty it has been to examine or act under it can well testify. To prevent any further accumulation to this chaotic mass, was the object of the constitutional provision under consideration."§ In the same State, it has been said to be improper to give this provision "too rigorous and technical a construction." If in applying it we should follow the rules of a nice and fastidious verbal criticism, we should often frustrate the action of the legislature, without fulfilling the intention of the framers of the constitution; and so it has been said, that an act entitled an act to "provide a homestead for widows and children" was good, though in fact the statute only * Constitution of Ohio, art. ii., § 16. † Constitution of Kentucky, art. ii., § 37. provided the pecuniary means sufficient to purchase a homestead. In the State of Maryland, it has been said that the provision that "every law enacted by the legislature shall embrace but one subject, and that shall be designated by the title," was to prevent grafting upon subjects of great public benefit and importance foreign and pecuniary matters for local and selfish purposes.† In California, much less importance has been attached to the provision, the court saying, "We regard this section of the constitution as merely directory; and if we were inclined to a different opinion, would be careful how we lent ourselves to a construction which must in effect obliterate almost every law from the statute book, unhinge the business and destroy the labor of the last three years. The first legislature that met under the constitution, seems to have considered this section as directory; and almost every act of that and the subsequent sessions would be obnoxious to this objection. The contemporaneous exposition of the first legislature, adopted or acquiesced in by every subsequent legislature, and tacitly assented to by the courts, taken in connection with the fact that rights have grown up under it so that it has become a rule of property, must govern our decision."+ Amendment of Laws.-Serious confusion is constantly caused by the great looseness which prevails in our legislative bodies in regard to the practice * Succession of Lanzetti, 9 La. Ann., 329. See, also, Læfon vs. Dufrocq, ibid, 540. † Davis vs. The State, Court of Appeals, 7 Maryland, 151. In Texas, as to the provision that every law must embrace but one object, which shall be expressed in the title, see Battle vs. Howard, 13 Texas, 345. Washington vs. Murray, 4 California, 388. * pursued by them on the subject of repealing or amending laws. The former branch of the subject has not yet received with us the general attention which it merits; but at least one State (Maryland) has acted on it, and many of our recent State constitutions contain provisions on the subject of amending legislative enactments which are well worthy of careful attention and of general adoption. I give some of them : Maryland. "The style of all laws of this State shall be, 'Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland;' and all laws shall be passed by original bill; and every law enacted by the legislature shall embrace but one subject, and that shall be described in the title; and no law, or section of law, shall be revised, amended, or repealed, by reference to its title or section only."t * "Perhaps the greatest evil of all, as it affects the interests of the community at large, is the utter uncertainty that prevails as to what is, and what is not, repealed. This arises from the vicious practice already noticed, and which pervades the whole body of the statute law, of repealing some former acts or enactments, not by express reference, but by provisions that '80 much of any former act of Parliament, heretofore made, as is inconsistent with or repugnant to the act in question, shall be, and is thereby, repealed;' or, as continually occurs, by clauses upon the same subject, and for the most part to the same effect, as other clauses in former acts (but without any express reference to former acts), leaving it doubtful whether the later enactments supersede and repeal the earlier, or whether both are still to remain in force and constitute distinct provisions in the statute law. The doubts and difficulties, and, consequently, the vast amount of litigation, of which this uncertainty is the cause, are quite beyond calculation. It has been thought that more than half of the business of all the courts of law and equity in the Kingdom consists of disputed questions upon the construction of acts of Parliament; and, if that be so, it is certain that more than a fourth of the whole is caused entirely by this mischievous course of legislation. It is often found impossible to reconcile these accumulations of enactments; hence the multiplicity of suits, arguments, and discussions, and, at length, difference among the judges themselves, and, ultimately, appeals to tribunals of the last resort." I take the above extract from a very interesting letter by Sir Fitzroy Kelly, recently placed at the head of the new commission upon the consolidation of the statute law of England, as I find it extracted in the Boston Law Reporter for January, 1857. Cons. of Maryland, art. iii., § 17. Texas.-"No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title; but in such case the act revised, or section amended, shall be reenacted, and published at length."* Michigan." No law shall be revised, altered, or amended, by reference to its title only; but the act revised, and the section or sections of the act altered or amended, shall be re-enacted, and published at length."+ Indiana." No act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title; but the act revised, or section amended, shall be set forth and published at full length." Ohio. "No law shall be revised or amended unless the new act contain the entire act revised or the section or sections amended; and the section or sections so amended shall be repealed."§ Louisiana.-"No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title; but, in such case, the act revised or section amended shall be re-enacted, and published at length."|| In regard to the subject of repeal, it has been decided, in Maryland, that the constitutional provision that "no law, or section of law, shall be revised, amended, or repealed, by reference to its title or section only," is not inconsistent with the doctrine of repeal, by implication, of all laws inconsistent with an independent act of the legislature establishing a new or revising some previous policy of the State. And, in regard to the general policy of the restriction, it has been said, in the same State, that "this clause was inserted in the constitution for the purpose of preventing incautious and fraudulent legislation, and to enable members to act knowingly upon all subjects, and to guard them from the contingency of voting for the repeal or revival of laws, through mistake or acci * Constitution of Texas, art. vii., § 25. § Constitution of Ohio, art. ii., § 16. dent, under the deceptive language often employed in the title of acts."* Constitutional Majorities.-The constitutions of most of the States contain provisions in regard to certain subjects deemed of special importance, by which no legislative action can be had unless positive and specific majorities are obtainedt. Some of the most prominent are as follows: Texas. "No private corporation shall be created unless the bill creating it shall be passed by two thirds of both Houses of the legislature; and two thirds of the legislature shall have power to revoke and repeal all private corporations, by making compensation for the franchise." Michigan.-"The legislature shall pass no law altering or amending any act of incorporation heretofore granted, without the assent of two thirds of the members elected to each house; nor shall any such act be renewed or extended. This restriction shall not apply to municipal corporations."§ "The assent of two thirds of the members elected to each house of the legislature, shall be requisite to every bill appropriating the public money or property for local or private purposes."|| *Davis vs. The State, 7 Maryland, 151. In Indiana, as to the construction of the clause, see Rogers' Admrs. vs. The State, 6 Indiana, 31. The Constitution of Tennessee contains a provision to the effect, that after a bill has been rejected, no bill containing the same substance shall be passed into a law during the same session.-Cons., art. ii., § 19. † For cases decided on these provisions, as to the requisition of a certain number of votes, and how the fact is to appear, see Thomas vs. Daken, 22 Wend. 112; Warner vs. Beers, 23 Wend. 103; Hunt vs. Vanbelstyer, 25 Wend. 605; Purdy vs. The People, 4 Hill, 384; Buffalo and N. Falls R. R. vs. Buffalo, 5 Hill, 209; People ex rel. Lynch vs. Mayor, 25 Wend. 680; People vs. Morris, 13 Wend. 325; Lansing vs. Smith, 8 Cowen, 146; Coml. Bk. of Buffalo vs. Sparrow, 2 Denio, 97; De Bow vs. The People, 1 Denio, 9; Gifford vs. Livingston, 2 Denio, 380; Russell vs. The Mayor, 2 Denio, 461; Warner vs. The People, 2 Denio, 272; Supervisors of Niagara vs. People, 4 Hill, 20; Supervisors of Niagara vs. People, 7 Hill, 504; see, also, ante, ch. iii., p. 68. Constitution of Texas, art. vii., § 31. § Constitution of Michigan, art. xv., $ 8. I Constitution of Michigan, art. iv., § 45. |