Cooney v. Foote

• Decision Date: 11 November 1914
• Citation: 83 S.E. 537,142 Ga. 647
• Parties: COONEY v. FOOTE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

83 S.E. 537

142 Ga. 647

COONEY v. FOOTE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 11, 1914

Syllabus by the Court.

Article 3, § 7, par. 8, of the Constitution of Georgia, which provides that "no law or ordinance shall pass which refers to more than one subject-matter, or contains matter different from what is expressed in the title thereof," applies to legislation which the General Assembly may finally pass, and has no reference to the proposals to amend the Constitution. The legislative proposal of 1912 to amend article 6, § 7, par. 1, of the Constitution, is not invalid on account of any collision with article 3, § 7, par. 8, of that instrument.

Neither is the proposal of 1912 repugnant to article 3, § 7, par. 17 of the Constitution, which declares that "the amending or repealing act shall distinctly describe the law to be amended or repealed, as well as the alteration to be made."

The formula prescribed by the proposal of 1912 as indicative of the elector's approval or disapproval of the proposed amendment was intended (and was sufficient for that purpose) as an expression of assent or dissent to the whole amendment.

Certified questions from Court of Appeals.

Action between R. L. Cooney and G. W. Foote. On questions certified to the Supreme Court by the Court of Appeals. Questions answered in opinion.

Bryan & Middlebrooks and Guy W. Parker, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff.

A. E Wilson, of Atlanta, for defendant.

EVANS P.J.

The General Assembly in 1912 (Acts 1912, p. 30) proposed a constitutional amendment to article 6, § 7, par. 1, of the Constitution of this state, by adding thereto a provision:

"That the General Assembly may, in its discretion abolish justice courts and the office of justices of the peace and of notary public ex officio justices of the peace in any city of this state having a population of over twenty thousand, except the city of Savannah, and establish in lieu thereof such court or courts or system of courts as the General Assembly may, in its discretion, deem necessary, conferring upon such new court, or courts, or system of courts, when so established, the jurisdiction as to subject-matter now exercised by justice courts and by justices of the peace and notaries public ex officio justices of the peace, together with such additional jurisdiction, either as to amount or subject-matter, as may be provided by law, whereof some other court has not exclusive jurisdiction under this Constitution; together also with such provisions as to rules and procedure, in such courts and as to new trials and the correction of errors in and by said courts and with such further provision for the correction of errors by the superior court or the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court, as the General Assembly may from time to time, in its discretion, provide or authorize. Any court so established shall not be subject to the rules of uniformity laid down in paragraph 1 of section 9 of article 6 of the Constitution of Georgia."

This amendment was submitted to the people at a general election, and was proclaimed by the Governor as having been adopted as the result of the election. Subsequently a municipal court of the city of Atlanta was created, and it was provided that from the judgment of the appellate division of that court an appeal shall lie by writ of error to the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Acts 1913, p. 145. The question certified by the Court of Appeals relates to its jurisdiction to entertain writs of error from that court, as dependent upon the proposal of 1912 having been submitted and ratified agreeably to the provisions of the Constitution. The basal proposition involved in the first question is the applicability of article 3, § 7, par. 8, of the Constitution of Georgia (Civil Code 1910, § 6437), to the proposal of amendments to that Constitution by the General Assembly. That provision is as follows:

"No law or ordinance shall pass which refers to more than one subject-matter, or contains matter different from what is expressed in the title thereof."

1. The word "Law" in this constitutional provision is clearly confined to statutes within the power of the General Assembly to enact. What is the meaning of the word "ordinance"? Does it refer to or embrace proposals to amend the Constitution? We will first turn to the Constitution as furnishing internal aid to its interpretation. The Constitution of 1877 consists of a comprehensive arrangement of the organic law in one instrument and certain ordinances attached thereto. It is declared therein:

"That the Governor shall issue his proclamation, ordering an election for members of the General Assembly, and a vote upon the ratification or rejection of this Constitution, as therein provided, and a vote upon the capital and homestead questions, as provided by the ordinances of this convention." Civil Code 1910, § 6617.

The Constitution contains these provisions: Article 12, § 1, par. 3 (Civil Code 1910, § 6604):

"All laws now of force in this state, not inconsistent with this Constitution, and the ordinances of this convention, shall remain of force until the same are modified or repealed by the General Assembly. * * *"

Article 12, § 1, par. 8 (Civil Code 1910, § 6609):

"The ordinances of this convention shall have the force of laws until otherwise provided by the General Assembly, except the ordinances in reference to submitting the homestead and capital question to a vote of the people, which ordinances, after being voted on, shall have the effect of constitutional provisions."

Article 3, § 7, par. 22 (Civil Code 1910, § 6450):

"The General Assembly shall have power to make all laws and ordinances consistent with this Constitution, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, which they shall deem necessary and proper for the welfare of the state."

Article 3, § 7, par. 13 (Civil Code 1910, § 6442):

"All acts shall be signed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and no bill, ordinance, or

resolution, intended to have the effect of a law, which shall have been rejected by either house, shall be again proposed during the same session, under the same or any other title, without the consent of two-thirds of the house by which the same was rejected." When the framers of the Constitution came to deal with the subject of amendments, the whole matter was comprehended in its thirteenth article. There it was provided:

"Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in the Senate or House of Representatives, and if the same shall be agreed to by two-thirds of the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon. And the General Assembly shall cause such amendment or amendments to be published in one or more newspapers in each congressional district, for two months previous to the time of holding the next general election, and shall also provide for a submission of such proposed amendment or amendments to the people at said next general election; and if the people shall ratify such amendment or amendments by a majority of the electors qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly, voting thereon, such amendment or amendments shall become a part of this Constitution. When more than one amendment is submitted at the same time, they shall be so submitted as to enable the electors to vote on each amendment separately."

The clause respecting plurality of subject-matters, and the inclusion in the body of an act of matter different from what is expressed in the title, was brought forward from the Constitution of 1798.

"The traditionary history of this clause is, that it was inserted in the Constitution of 1798, at the instance of General James Jackson, and that its necessity was suggested by the Yazoo Act. That memorable measure of the 17th of January, 1795, as is well known, was smuggled through the Legislature, under the caption of an act 'for the payment of the late state troops,' and a declaration in its title of the right of the state to the unappropriated territory thereof, 'for the protection and support of its frontier settlements.' " Mayor, etc., of Savannah v. State, 4 Ga. 38.

The provision for the publication of the entire proposal to amend the Constitution in one or more newspapers in each congressional district for two months previous to the time of holding the election was manifestly deemed a sufficient notice to the public at large of the exact provisions of the...