Harris v. State ex rel. Williams

• Decision Date: 23 November 1933
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 81.
• Citation: 228 Ala. 100,151 So. 858
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: HARRIS v. STATE ex rel. WILLIAMS et al.

151 So. 858

228 Ala. 100

HARRIS v. STATE ex rel. WILLIAMS et al.

3 Div. 81.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 23, 1933

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1934.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones Judge.

Quo warranto proceeding by the State of Alabama, on the relation of A. J. Williams, and A. J. Williams, individually, against P. H. Harris, individually, and as Deputy Tax Assessor. From a judgment of ouster, defendant appeals.

Reversed and rendered.

Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., Frontis H. Moore, Asst. Atty Gen., and Rice & Bibb, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Ball & Ball and Hill, Hill, Whiting, Thomas & Rives, all of Montgomery, for appellees.

FOSTER Justice.

This is a proceeding to test the right and authority of appellant to act as deputy tax assessor appointed by the state tax commission under the authority of section 25-A of an act approved September 13, 1923. Gen. Acts 1923, pp. 284, 293, as amended by an act approved June 10, 1931. Gen. Acts 1931, p. 295.

The act of 1923 was introduced in the House and passed without sections 25-A and 25-B and without the inclusion in the title of the following words, "and to further provide for the revenue of the State of Alabama," where those words appear at the end of such title. Sections 25-A and 25-B, and such additions to the title, were added by a conference committee in which both Houses concurred.

The act of 1923, both as originally introduced and as finally adopted, is properly classed as one to raise revenue. Williams v. City of Albany, 216 Ala. 408, 113 So. 257.

But it is not every such act which should be properly termed a "revenue act" within the meaning of the last clause of section 70 of the Constitution. In re Opinions of Justices, 223 Ala. 369, 136 So. 589; State v. Henry, 224 Ala. 224 (18), 139 So. 278; State ex rel. Franklin County v. Hester, 224 Ala. 460, 140 So. 744; Woco Pep Co. v. Butler, 225 Ala. 258, 142 So. 509; Southern R. Co. v. Mitchell, 139 Ala. 629, 37 So. 85, 88.

Neither was it intended that the revenue bills mentioned in that clause of section 70 of the Constitution should be limited to those proposed by the Governor, Auditor, and Attorney General, but it includes those of the nature of a general revenue bill though not thus proposed. Whether a bill is one merely to raise revenue by a specific tax or is so extensive in scope as properly to be classed as a general revenue bill must depend upon the inherent qualities of each without any hard and fast formula other than such as we have stated in the cases cited above.

The act of 1923 here in question is not of the nature of a general revenue bill, but is one to amend the revenue laws in respect to specific taxes, and to prevent escapes, as well as to raise revenue.

Section 45 of the Constitution provides that general revenue bills are excepted from its requirement that "each law shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title." We think this has reference to those bills which we have said were referred to in the last clause of section 70 of the Constitution.

So that whether the act of 1923 shall stand the test of section 45 depends upon whether it contains but one subject which is clearly expressed in its title. It cannot thus be sustained if the provision to prevent motor vehicles from escaping ad valorem taxation, and the creation of an agent of the tax commission called a deputy tax assessor to assess all escaped personalty subject to taxation, are two subjects within the meaning of section 45, or if the title "to further provide for the revenue of the State of Alabama" is not a clear expression of the subject.

The answer seems to depend upon the question of whether further providing for the revenue of the state, or the amendment of existing revenue laws, is one subject within that provision of the Constitution, or whether it would do violence to it to hold that for legislative purposes an amendment of the system of revenue laws is not too broad in its scope to be thus termed.

The general rule is that generality or comprehensiveness of the subject is not a violation of section 45, and that a broad, comprehensive subject justifies the inclusion of any matter not incongruous or unconnected with the subject, provided the title is not uncertain or misleading. Chapman v. Ry. Fuel Co., 212 Ala. 106, 101 So. 879; State ex rel. Gunter v. Thompson, 193 Ala. 561, 69 So. 461; State v. Street, 117 Ala. 203, 23 So. 807; Lindsay v. United States Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 120 Ala. 172, 173, 24 So. 171, 176, 42 L. R. A. 783; Lovejoy v. City of Montgomery, 180 Ala. 473, 61 So. 597; State ex rel. Ham v. Brock, 180 Ala. 505, 61 So. 646; Toole v. State, 170 Ala. 41 (12), 54 So. 195; State v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 158 Ala. 208, 48 So. 391; Mobile Transp. Co. v. Mobile, 128 Ala. 335. 30 So. 645, 646, 64 L. R. A. 333, 86 Am. St. Rep. 143; Jordan v. McClure Lumber Co., 170 Ala. 289 (13), 54 So. 415; State v. Skinner, 20 Ala. App. 204, 101 So. 327, 328; Davenport v. State, 112 Ala. 49, 20 So. 971, 972; Stone v. State, 137 Ala. 1, 34 So. 629, 630; City Council of Montgomery v. National Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 108 Ala. 336, 18 So. 816; Lockhart v. City of Troy, 48 Ala. 579; Ex parte Pollard, 40 Ala. 77-98; State v. Stripling, 113 Ala. 120, 21 So. 409, 36 L. R. A. 81.

"The generality of a title, not defining the particulars of the proposed legislation, would be more apt to excite general attention than othewise, since the general words would give warning that everything within their limits might be affected, and thus draw the attention of the whole body of legislators, while narrower words would only interest those concerned with the matters specially named." Mobile Transp. Co. v. Mobile, supra.

An act "to regulate banks and banking" justifies the fixation of a license tax together with certain privileges secured by its payment. Lovejoy v. Montgomery, supra. The title may be as broad as the Legislature may choose to make it if it comprehends everything in the bill and contains but one subject. Ex parte Pollard, supra. Section 45 should not be so construed

as to cripple the Legislature unnecessarily to accomplish its purpose. Ham v. Brock, supra.

The title of a bill "to suppress the evils of intemperance" is but one subject and an abstract or catalogue of its details need not be further expressed in its title. Toole v. State, supra.

A title "to prevent frauds and impositions upon the people of the state and to protect investors" was held to justify the Blue Sky Law as containing but one general, broad subject. State v. Skinner, supra.

An act "to protect human life" held sufficient to justify the creation of the offense of presenting guns and pistols at others. Davenport v. State, supra.

A title "to amend an act entitled an act 'to expedite the trial of capital cases"' is sufficient to justify legislation with reference to the number of challenges allowed defendant. Stone v. State, supra.

An act "to establish a charter for the city" is all-sufficient. Lockhart v. City of Troy, supra.

An act "to regulate judicial proceedings" which postponed the execution of a judgment for twelve months, known as the "Stay Law," did not in that respect offend such provision of the Constitution. Ex parte Pollard, supra.

A title "for the better suppression of gambling" is a sufficient expression of one subject. State v. Stripling, supra.

In Southern Railway Co. v. Mitchell, supra, the court was dealing with a general revenue bill. While its title did not state its subject as being amendatory of existing revenue laws, the court observed that its purpose was necessarily to change or modify such laws; that it was therefore essentially of that nature; and that had general revenue bills not been excepted from the requirements of section 45, "this bill might well have been written under such a title as this: 'To amend the revenue law of the state,' or this: 'To further amend the revenue laws of the state of Alabama.' Either of these titles would have adequately expressed the purpose-the subject-of the bill."

It does not follow that because section 45 excepted general revenue bills, they are of such sort as that one to amend or further regulate the state's revenue contains more than one subject. We note that section 45 also excepts bills adopting a Code, digest, or revision of statutes. Those exceptions from section 45 were new to the Constitution of 1875. But when there was no such exception this court held that a statute with such title and to that effect was valid, and contained but one subject, and so expressed. Dew v. Cunningham, 28 Ala. 466, 65 Am. Dec. 362; Ex parte Pollard, 40 Ala. 98; Hoover v. State, 59 Ala. 57; Bales v. State, 63 Ala. 30. See Gibson v. State, 214 Ala. 38, 106 So. 231. Such is the generally accepted view. 59 Corpus Juris, 889.

The fact that those exceptions are stated in section 45 is not conclusive that their statement was necessary to effect that purpose; but it has been said by this court that the exception in respect to the codification of statutes was inserted out of abundance of caution. Ex parte Thomas, 113 Ala. 1, 4, 5, 21 So. 369, citing Ex parte Pollard, supra.

Many acts have been passed whose validity in respect to section 45 has never been questioned, and whose subject as expressed in the title was to provide for or regulate matters affecting the state's revenue, in short, to amend the state's revenue laws, though not in the nature of a general revenue bill, and which embrace separate and distinct features of revenue provisions; such as the Income Tax Act of 1933, Gen Acts 1933 (Ex. Sess.) p. 150; the Near Beer License Act of 1932, Gen. Acts 1932 (Ex. Sess.) p. 94; the Tobacco Tax Act 1932, Gen. Acts 1932 (Ex. Sess.) p....