Orbison v. Welsh, 30147
| Decision Date | 22 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 30147,30147 |
| Citation | 179 N.E.2d 727,242 Ind. 385 |
| Parties | Robert H. ORBISON, Appellant, v. Matthew E. WELSH, Governor of Indiana, The Indiana Port Commission, etc., Edwin K. Steers, Attorney-General of Indiana, Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Young & Young, Howard S. Young, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Ellen Anne Lloyd, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellees.
This case involves the constitutionality of Chapter 11 of the Acts of 1961 1 commonly known as the Indiana Port Commission Act.
Appellant, a taxpayer, brought action for declaratory judgment and injunction against the Governor, Attorney General, and members of the Indiana Port Commission, alleging fourteen different respects in which said Indiana Port Commission Act was in violation of the Indiana and U.S. Constitutions, and asking that appellees-defendants be enjoined from expending any money, issuing any bonds or taking any proceedings under said Act. Appellees filed answer and the cause was submitted to the court for trial resulting in a finding and judgment for appellees. Appellant assigns as error the overruling of his motion for new trial.
On this appeal we shall consider the fourteen separate contentions of appellant as to the unconstitutionality of the above Act.
First. Appellant contends the title of the Act is not as broad as the subject matter (in several respects) and the Act is therefore in violation of Art. 4, § 19 of the Indiana Constitution. The cited section of the Constitution provides:
* * *'
The title to the Indiana Port Commission Act reads as follows:
'INDIANA PORT COMMISSION
'AN ACT concerning the establishment, development and operation of a public port on Lake Michigan; abolishing the Indiana Board of Public Harbors and Terminals and creating the Indiana Port Commission and defining its powers and duties; concerning the financing, acquisition, improvement and operation of such public port and terminal facilities and providing for co-operation with the federal government; repealing all laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith; and making an appropriation.' [Acts 1961, ch. 11, p. 14.]
Appellant urges (a) that the title makes no mention of the proposed use of funds raised by taxation whereas a part of the body of the Act (§ 12), which follows, purports to create the Indiana Port Fund and to transfer to said fund monies raised by taxation, viz.:
[Acts of 1961, ch. 11, § 12, p. 26, being Burns' (1961 Repl.), § 68-1210.]
Appellant urges (b) the title does not refer to the proposed issuance of port revenue bonds for construction of the port, whereas § 13 of the Act provides in part as follows:
'The commission is hereby authorized to provide by resolution, at one time or from time to time, for the issuance of port revenue bonds of the state for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of a port project. * * *' [Acts of 1961, ch. 11, § 13, p. 27, being Burns' (1961 Repl.), § 68-1211.]
Appellant urges (c) the title does not refer to the proposed construction of airplane landing fields, railroads, roadways, sewers or the financing [sic] [furnishing] of utility service, although § 2(c) of the Act provides in part:
'The words 'port project' shall include any facilities, adjuncts and appurtenances necessary to operate a modern port, including * * * railroad equipment and trackage, roadways, airplane landing fields, * * * sewers, drains, works for the treatment of sewage, garbage and wastes, and the furnishing of utility service necessary to serve the property * * *.' [Acts of 1961, ch. 11, § 2(c), p. 15, being Burns' (1961 Repl.) § 68-1202(c).]
Appellant urges (d) the title does not refer to the proposed relocation of roads, railroad or utility facilities or for their payment out of public funds although § 8 of the Act provides in part:
* * *' [Acts of 1961, ch. 11, § 8, p. 22, being Burns' (1961 Repl.), § 68-1209.]
This Court has stated in considering the constitutionality of an act with reference to its title, that a liberal interpretation will be adopted rather than a critical construction calculated to defeat it. Ennis v. State Highway Commission (1952), 231 Ind. 311, 317, 108 N.E.2d 687, 690.
The title need not contain a complete index or abstract of the contents of an act, but the title sufficiently expresses the subject when upon a liberal construction it gives such notice as to apprise the legislators and the public of the general subject matter of the legislation. Wright-Bachman, Inc. v. Hodnett, et al. (1956), 235 Ind. 307, 317, 133 N.E.2d 713, 717; Albert v. Milk Control Board of Indiana (1936), 210 Ind. 283, 288, 200 N.E. 688, 690.
If a title expresses the general purpose of the act, everything contained in the body of the act which is germane to such purpose or properly connected therewith as a means of making the act effective to accomplish the purpose is covered by the title. Wright-Bachman, Inc. v. Hodnett et al. (1956), supra; Benson, Administrator v. Christian (1891), 129 Ind. 535, 538, 29 N.E. 26, 27.
Applying these principles to the case before us, it will be noted that the title of the Indiana Port Commission Act makes reference to '* * * the financing * * * of such public port * * *.' We believe § 12 of the Act attempting to create the Indiana Port Fund and to transfer to said fund money raised by taxation is properly connected with the purpose of financing the port so as to be included within the title of the Act.
Similarly it is our opinion that the reference in the title to financing of the port, etc., is sufficient to embrace the issuance of bonds by the Port Commission. See: Alanel Corp., etc. v. Indianapolis Redevelopment Comm. et al. (1958), 239 Ind. 35, 50, 154 N.E.2d 515, 523; City of Indianapolis et al. v. Buckner et al. (1954), 233 Ind. 32, 37, 116 N.E.2d 507, 510.
The point raised by appellant that the title does not refer to the proposed constrcution of airplane landing fields, railroads, roadways, sewers, or the furnishing of utility service, we also believe is not well taken. The title expressly refers to '* * * the establishment, development and operation of a public port * * *' and to the '* * * acquisition, improvement and operation of such public port and terminal facilities * * *.' Section 2(c) of the Act defines 'port project' to include the proposed construction and furnishing of the items herein referred to. All of these matters referred to in the body of the Act are germane to and properly connected with the portions of the title above referred to.
The possible relocation of roads, railroads or public utilities by the Commission (which is virtually identical with the Acts of 1951, ch. 281, § 6, p. 856,--the Toll Road Act) 2 is limited to their utilization in connection with the port and terminal facilities, and such provisions are likewise germane and properly connected with the '* * * establishment, development and * * * improvement * * * of [a] public port * * *' specified in the title of the Act. See: Book v. Board of Flood Control Comrs. etc. et al. (1959), 239 Ind. 160, 172, 156 N.E.2d 87, 93.
It is our opinion that the title of the Act is sufficient to meet the requirements of Art. 4, § 19 of the Constitution of Indiana.
Second. Appellant here contends the Act constitutes an attempt by the Legislature to confer extra-territorial effect on one of its own acts.
Specifically, appellant contends § 5 of the Act is unconstitutional in that it authorizes and directs the Commission to enter into agreements for the building and construction of a public port '* * * to be located within the State of Indiana or on Lake Michigan in waters adjacent to the State of Indiana; * * *.' (Emphasis added.) This section of the Act, appellant contends, violates Art. 14, § 1 of the Constitution of Indiana providing the northern boundary of the state shall be '* * * an east and west line, drawn through a point ten miles north of the southern extreme of Lake Michigan; * * *.'
Appellant does not specifically contend the above portion of the Act objected to attempts to authorize the construction of the port beyond the ten mile limit set forth in the Constitution, but it appears the Act only authorizes the port within the State of Indiana or in Lake Michigan in waters adjacent to the state. We do not see now this language, reasonably construed, could be considered in violation of the constitutional provision above cited.
Third. Appellant further contends the Act is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
UNITED BEV. CO. v. INDIANA ALCOHOLIC BEV. COM'N
...need to be specific as the circumstances permit, considering the purpose to be accomplished by the statute. Orbison v. Welsh, Governor et al. (1962), 242 Ind. 385, 179 N.E.2d 727; Wampler v. Trustees of Indiana University (1961), 241 Ind. 449, 172 N.E.2d In this same vein the Court of Appea......
-
American Nat. Bank and Trust Co. v. Indiana Dept. of Highways
...Among the helpful precedents for review are Steup v. Indiana Housing Finance Authority, (1980) Ind., 402 N.E.2d 1215; Orbison v. Welsh, (1962) 242 Ind. 385, 179 N.E.2d 727; Book v. State Office Building Commission, (1958) 238 Ind. 120, 149 N.E.2d 273; and Ennis v. State Highway Commission, ......
-
DeHarder Inv. Corp. v. IND. HOUSING FINANCE AUTH.
...it is not the state in its sovereign corporate capacity." Id., 402 N.E.2d at 1218 (emphasis added), quoting Orbison v. Welsh, 242 Ind. 385, 179 N.E.2d 727, 734 (1962) (involving Indiana Port Commission); see also Indiana State Toll-Bridge Comm'n v. Minor, 236 Ind. 193, 139 N.E.2d 445, 449 (......
-
City of Newark v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation
...N.J.Super. 19, 200 A.2d 793 (App.Div.1964); Cf. Clayton v. Kervick, 52 N.J. 138, 155, 244 A.2d 281, (1968); See also Orbison v. Welsh, 242 Ind. 385, 179 N.E.2d 727 (1962); Carney v. Ohio Turnpike Commission, 167 Ohio St. 273, 147 N.E.2d 857 (1958); Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 89 N.W.2......