Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

alterations of them by excisions, additions, or substitutions create no discrepancy between the title and the act.* act entitled "act to amend" a former act, and containing nothing not germane to the act amended, is valid; but such an act cannot embrace any matter not expressed in the title of the former act. But if the title of the original act is sufficient to embrace the provisions contained in the amending act, it is unnecessary to inquire whether the title of the amending act would of itself be sufficient.§ But the titles of both acts may be looked to in a proper case.||

A new statute on the subject of an old one may properly contain a clause repealing it, though such repeal is not indicated by the title.¶

When the title contains an obvious mistake, which could not have misled anyone, the act will not be held void,** and a mistake in the title of an act, as approved by the governor, will not invalidate it, if it was correct as passed, and the mistake was not misleading in its character.††

It is not required that a bill shall preserve the same title through all its stages in both houses, and any slight change thus made, not affecting its obvious meaning, will not invalidate the law. If the title is changed after the bill has passed one house, and before it is sent to the other, this change will not avoid the act, if the title, after the change, is

[ocr errors]

*Robinson vs. Lane, 19 Ga. 337; Hill vs. Commissioners, 22 id. 203. +Swartwowt vs. Michigan R. R. Co., 24 Mich. 389; Harrington vs. Wands,

23 id. 385; Austin vs. G. C. R. R. Co., 45 Texas, 236; State Line R. R. Co's Appeal, 77 Penn. St. 429; Church street in re, 54 id. 353; Dorsey's Appeal, 72 id. 192; Barton vs. Pittsburg, 4 Brewster, 373.

Chiles es. Monroe, 4 Metc. Ky. 75.

Brandon vs. State, 16 Ind. 197; State vs. Bowers, 14 id. 195.

|| Jones vs. Mayor, 25 Ga. 610.

Gabbert vs. Jeffersonville R. R. Co., 11 Ind. 365.

** Gilbert vs. Belcher, 1 Bush, 145.

#People vs. Supervisors, 16 Mich. 254.

‡‡ Walnut es. Wade, 103 U. S. 692; Plummer vs. People, 74 Ill. 361.

sufficient to call the attention of the latter to the provisions of the bill, the title, both before and after the change, being sufficiently specific for that purpose.*

In the absence of proof by the journals, it will be presumed that the title of the bill as passed was the same as appears by the act as passed;† and when it appears by the journals that a bill was amended by striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting a new bill, it cannot be presumed that the matter inserted was upon a different subject from that stricken out, especially when the matter inserted is consistent with the title borne by the bill both before and after the amendment.

It is well settled that when a part of a statute is unconstitutional, because not expressed in the title, the courts are not authorized to declare the remainder void, unless the various provisions are so connected in subject-matter, means, or purpose, that it cannot be presumed that the legislature would have passed the one without the other.§

But when the act is composed of a number of discordant and dissimilar subjects, so that no one can be clearly recognized as the controlling or principal one, the whole law is void and if the purpose of the act is to accomplish a single object only, and some of its provisions are void, the whole act must fail unless there be sufficient remaining to effect that object without the invalid portion.¶

*Binz 8. Weber, 81 Ill. 288.

Miller vs. State, 3 Ohio St. 475.

+ Binz rs. Weber, ubi sup.

? Middleton ex parte, 82 N. Y. 202 ; Gordon vs. Cornes., 47 id. 617; People vs. Bull, 46 id. 69; Allegheny Home's Appeal, 77 Penn. St. 77 ; Allegheny City vs. Moorehead, 80 id. 118; People vs. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553; People vs. Comrs., 53 Barb. 70; Sackett Street, in re, 74 N. Y. 95; Van Antwerp ex parte, 56 id. 261; Gibson vs. Belcher, 1 Bush, 147; Fuqua vs. Mullen, 13 id. 467; Davis es. State, 7 Md. 151; Berry's Appeal, 41 id. 446; ex parte Pollard, 40 Ala. 77; Mayor vs. State, 4 Ga. 26; Binz rs. Weber, 81 Ill. 288; Sedgwick es. Bailey, 13 Kansas, 600; Swayze vs. Britton, 17 id. 625. ¶ Ex parte Towles, 48 Texas, 413.

Davis rs. State, 7 Md. 151.

It only remains to be said, that notwithstanding the extremely liberal construction that has been placed on this constitutional provision, such has been the carelessness on the part of legislators, or their willingness to incur risks in securing the passage of favorite measures, that the books contain many decisions holding statutes or parts of statutes void for a disregard of its terms.

PAPER

READ BY

THOMAS J. SEMMES.

The Civil Law as Transplanted in Louisiana. Although the Civil Code of Louisiana is subject to criticism, its excellence, recognized by distinguished jurists, is attested by the fact that no radical change has been made since its adoption in 1825, save the alterations resulting from the abolition of slavery. In other respects the hand of innovation has lightly touched it, the amendments during a period of fifty-seven years being few and unimportant.

Although it deals in definitions and explanations to a considerable extent, and in that respect may be considered, according to Mr. Austin's standard, an improvement on the European codes, yet its principles and distinctions are borrowed from the ancient Roman law, and presuppose a knowledge of it, as modified by the jurisprudence of France and Spain.

This unwritten law constitutes a subsidiary system of jurisprudence, let in by the side of the code, and it governs in the absence of express legislation.

This defect, if defect it be, is not so great as might be imagined; for the Roman law, or at least that portion of it which was made by the writings or opinions of jurisconsults, and which is styled Pandect law, is the most coherent body of law of which we have knowledge. "Although it was made in succession by a series of jurisconsults continuing for more

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »