CHAMPLIN
C.J.
The
relator asks for a mandamus to compel
the township board to approve a liquor bond presented to the
board by the relator under Act 313 of the Public Acts of
1887. The township board refused to entertain jurisdiction
for reasons stated in their answer to the petition as
follows: "The said respondents further show unto the
court that the said township board refused to approve said
bond of the said John W. Feek, said bond being presented to
said board as a liquor bond for said Feek who was desirous of
and intended to engage in the business of selling and keeping
for sale spirituous and intoxicating liquors at retail in
said township, for the reason that the board of supervisors
of the county of Van Buren, in which said township is
situated, in pursuance of Act No. 207 of the Public Acts of
the Legislature for 1889, adopted a resolution prohibiting
the sale of intoxicating liquors, or any mixed liquor or
beverage any part of which is intoxicating, as provided in
section 13 of said act. That before the adoption of said
resolution by said board of supervisors,
the will of the qualified electors of said county was
ascertained whether or not the manufacture of liquors and the
liquor traffic should be prohibited within the limits of said
county; and that, in order to ascertain the will of the
electors aforesaid by an election, as provided in said Act
207, all of the provisions of sections three, four, five,
six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, and all the other
provisions of said law in regard to the election therein
provided, were in every particular complied with and
performed, and, upon the canvass of the votes of the said
board of supervisors, as required by law, it was ascertained
that a majority of the legal voters of said county had voted
in favor of prohibiting the manufacture of liquors and the
liquor traffic in said county. The election aforesaid was
held on Monday, the 24th day of February, 1890. That the
result of the county canvass showed a majority of all the
legal votes cast were in the affirmative of the proposition
to prohibit within said county the manufacture of liquors and
the liquor traffic, and the said board of supervisors, after
the canvass as aforesaid, so determined and declared, and
thereupon the said board of supervisors did adopt a
resolution by a majority vote of all the members elect
ordering the prohibition within the limits of said county of
Van Buren of the manufacture, sale, keeping
for sale, giving away, or furnishing of any vinous, malt,
brewed, fermented, spirituous, or intoxicating liquors, and
prohibiting the keeping of a saloon, or any other place,
where such liquors are manufactured, sold, stored for sale,
given away, or furnished. That said resolutions were adopted
at the meeting of the board of supervisors at which said
canvass was made, and more than forty days before the 1st day
of May, 1890, and that all the provisions of section 13 of
said act, so far as the same refers to the duty of said board
of supervisors, was fully complied with and performed by said
board of supervisors. The respondent avers and states that
all the steps required to be taken and performed under Act
207 aforesaid, to ascertain the will of the legal electors of
Van Buren county aforesaid in regard to the manufacture of
liquor and liquor traffic therein, have been taken, and that
the election was legal and valid, and the affirmative
proposition aforesaid legally adopted and so determined by
the said board of supervisors, and the resolution aforesaid
of said board of supervisors also was legally adopted, and
respondents submit to this honorable court that said Act 207
is not unconstitutional and void, but, on the contrary, is
legal and valid, and that it was the duty of respondents to
refuse to act on said bond, and that the mandamus
ought to be denied." Counsel for relator insists that
Act No. 207 is unconstitutional for the following reasons:
" First, because the said law embraces more
than one object; second, because the objects are not
all embraced in the title; third, because the bill
under its title as published is a new bill introduced after
the first fifty days of the legislative session had expired;
fourth, because the act authorizes the board of
supervisors of a county to spread upon their records the
independent action of the county clerk, without proof of such
action, and to make it evidence that cannot be contradicted;
fifth, because, in terms, said act confers judicial
power upon the board of supervisors; sixth, because
said act contains no provision for giving notice of the
popular election to township boards and common
councils, who have authority under it to designate the places
for such election to be held; seventh, because the
said act confers the final power upon the board of
supervisors to declare an illegal election a valid one;
eighth, because the act confers upon the board of
supervisors the power to adopt irrepealable legislation;
ninth, because the act does not provide for definite
publication of the resolution of the board of supervisors;
tenth, because proof of publication is not made
necessary in proof of the law; eleventh, because the
legal act of posting a United States internal revenue receipt
is made evidence of crime; twelfth, because the act
assumes to delegate legislative power to the people of
counties; thirteenth, because said act attempts to
delegate to the people of counties the power to supersede and
suspend, not only the general laws of the state in force at
the time of the passage of said act, but also such general
laws as may be passed in the future; fourteenth,
because said act does not take effect upon the judgment and
determination of the legislature, but upon the judgment and
determination of the people of the counties acting jointly
with the board of supervisors. And for the further reason
that said act is opposed to the constitutional provisions and
policy designed to secure representative government."
Act No.
207 is entitled as follows: "An act to prohibit the
manufacture, sale, keeping for sale, giving away, or
furnishing of vinous, malt, brewed, fermented, spirituous, or
intoxicating liquors, or any mixed liquors, or beverage, any
part of which is intoxicating, and to prohibit the keeping of
any saloon or other place for the manufacture, sale, storing
for sale, giving away or furnishing of such liquors or
beverages, and to suspend the general laws of the state
relative to the taxation and regulation of the manufacture
and sale of such liquors in the several counties in this
state under certain circumstances; to authorize the qualified
electors of the several counties in this state to express
their will in regard to such prohibition by an election; and
to authorize and empower the board of supervisors of the
several counties, after such election, if they shall
determine the result to be in favor of such prohibition, to
prohibit the manufacture, sale, keeping for
sale, giving away, or furnishing of any such liquors, or of
the keeping of a saloon or other place for the manufacture,
sale, storing for sale, giving away, or furnishing of the
same within their respective counties; and to provide for
penalties and rights of action in case of its
violation." It is claimed that the act embraces two
distinct objects in its title, viz.: " First,
to prohibit the manufacture, sale, etc., of liquors in the
several counties of this state: second,
to authorize and empower the board of supervisors of the
several counties to prohibit such manufacture and sale."
In order to ascertain whether the title of the act embraces
more than one object, the whole act must be examined and
considered. And as the whole act seems to be involved in the
objections raised to its validity, the act, for convenience
of reference, wil be found printed, post, p. 44. Viewing this act as a whole, we find it to be a law, the
object of which is to prohibit the manufacture, sale, etc.,
of intoxicating liquors at the option of the local
authorities of any county in this state. In reaching that
object, the legislature saw fit to provide for delegating to
the board of supervisors the authority to legislate or to
make a certain order upon the subject. Prohibition is the end
provided for, and the board of supervisors are constituted
the means to attain that end. The object is single, and all the instrumentalities are designed to attain
that object. I can see no constitutional objection to the
title of the act.
In
discussing the questions raised, I shall follow the
arrangement contained in the brief of the counsel for
relator, and the next question discussed by him is under the
head of "Irrepealable Legislation." Attention is
called to section 13 of the act, wherein it is provided that
after the resolution of prohibition takes effect, it shall
not be subject to...
