In re County Com'rs of Counties Comprising Seventh Judicial Dist.
| Decision Date | 11 November 1908 |
| Parties | In re COUNTY COM'RS OF COUNTIES COMPRISING SEVENTH JUDICIAL DIST. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Section 57, art. 5 (Bunn's Ed. § 130), of the Constitution of this state, ordaining that "every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title," is mandatory; but its requirements are not to be exactingly enforced, or in such a technical manner as to cripple legislation.
[Ed Note.-For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. §§ 117, 118; Dec. Dig. § 105. [*]]
The title of the act entitled "An act to provide for the appointment of additional judges of the district courts of the state where same are found necessary; making an appropriation and declaring an emergency," embraces but one subject, namely, "the appointment of additional judges of the district courts of the state where same are found necessary," the subsequent clause being referable and so correlated, to the subject expressed in the first clause in the title as a natural and legitimate complement to the subject therein expressed.
[Ed Note.-For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. §§ 133 184-186; Dec. Dig. § 124. [*]]
That portion of section 1 of said act (Act May 29, 1908 [Sess. Laws 1907-08, p. 453, c. 46]) which provides that upon the recommendation of the Supreme Court "the Governor shall appoint an additional judge for such district for the time recommended by the court," at least as to the fixing of the time or term of office of such additional judge, delegates to or lodges such legislative power with the Supreme Court as conflicts with section 1, art. 4 (Bunn's Ed. § 50), of the Constitution.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. § 103; Dec. Dig. § 61. [*]]
That portion of section 2 of said act (Act May 29, 1908 [Sess. Laws 1907-08, p. 454, c. 46]) which provides that no appointment thereunder by the Governor of such additional judge "shall extend beyond January 1st, 1911," is in conflict with that portion of section 9, art. 7 (Bunn's Ed. § 178), of the Constitution, which provides that
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Judges, Dec. Dig. § 7. [*]]
This court has no authority to exercise legislative power that is neither a means appropriate nor necessary to the judicial or supervisory powers granted to it by the Constitution.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 129-132, 137; Dec. Dig. § 70. [*]]
Where a part of a statute is unconstitutional, that fact alone is not sufficient to authorize the courts to declare the remainder void, unless all the provisions are connected in the subject-matter, depending on each other, operating together for the same purpose, or otherwise so connected together in meaning that it cannot be presumed that the Legislature would have passed the one without the other.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. §§ 58-66, 195; Dec. Dig. § 64. [*]]
Petition to the Supreme Court by the county commissioners of a majority of the counties comprising the Seventh judicial district that it recommend to the Governor the appointment of an additional judge, pursuant to Act May 29, 1908 (Sess. Laws 1907-08, p. 453, c. 46). Petition dismissed.
Upon petition to this court of a majority of the county commissioners of the counties embraced in the Seventh district court judicial district of this state, it is contended in this court that such an unusual number of cases are awaiting trial in said court that a thorough, prompt, and effective administration of justice cannot be secured in said district, and we are asked to recommend to the Governor the appointment of an additional judge for said district for such period as the court may consider necessary to meet the condition therein.
In the event that we find that an unusual number of cases await trial by said court, and that a thorough, prompt, and effective administration of justice cannot be secured therein, it would become our duty to recommend, for such period as we may think necessary to meet the condition, to the Governor the appointment of an additional judge in said district. In such event it would be mandatory upon the Governor to appoint such additional judge for said district for the time recommended by the court, unless the act entitled "An act to provide for the appointment of additional judges of the district courts of the state where same are found necessary; making an appropriation and declaring an emergency," approved May 29, 1908 (Sess. Laws 1907-08, pp. 453, 454, c. 46), is invalid.
It is necessary to examine the following questions involved in said act:
(1) Whether or not the act contains two separate and distinct subjects, in that it provides for the appointment of additional judges of the district courts of the state where same are found necessary, and also makes an appropriation.
(2) Whether or not section 1 thereof, in providing that, when it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that any district court has such an unusual number of cases awaiting trial therein that a thorough, prompt, and effective administration of justice cannot be secured it shall recommend to the Governor the appointment of an additional judge, attempts to delegate legislative power to the judicial branch of the government.
(3) Whether or not the provision of section 1 of said act, that upon the recommendation of the Supreme Court the Governor shall appoint such additional judge for such district for the time recommended by the court, delegates to or lodges legislative power with the judiciary.
(4) Whether or not that portion of section 2 of said act, which provides that no appointment thereunder by the Governor of such additional judge "shall extend beyond January 1st, 1911," is in conflict with that portion of section 9, art. 7 (Bunn's Ed. § 178), of the Constitution, which provides that
1. The title of the act embraces but one subject, namely, the appointment of additional judges of the district courts of the state where same are found necessary. Section 57, art. 5 (Bunn's Ed. § 130), of the Constitution of this state, ordains that "every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. ***" The abuses which called such provision into existence are clearly understood, and are twofold. Each subject brought into the deliberation of the legislative department of the government is to be considered and voted on singly, without having associated with it any other measure to give it strength. Experience had shown that measures having no common purpose, and each wanting sufficient support on its merits to secure its enactment, have been carried through legislative bodies and enacted into laws, when neither measure could command or merit the approval of a majority of that body.
The other abuse against which this provision was leveled was to prevent matters foreign to the main objects of a bill from finding their way into such enactment surreptitiously. Substantially such a provision is found in many of the state Constitutions, and, as is usual in such cases, judges have differed in their interpretation of the same. The best-considered cases, however, appear to have established the following propositions: That the clause is mandatory; that its requirements are not to be exactingly enforced, or in such a technical manner as to cripple legislation; that the title of a bill may be very general, and need not contain an abstract of the contents of the bill, or specify every clause therein, it being sufficient if they are all referable and cognate to the subject expressed. Everything which is necessary to make a complete enactment, or to result as a complement of the thought therein contained, is included in and authorized by such title expressed in general terms. Weaver et al. v. Lapsley, 43 Ala. 224; Walker v. State, 49 Ala. 329; Lockhart v. City of Troy, 48 Ala. 579; Ballentyne v. Wickersham, 75 Ala. 535; State v. Rogers, 107 Ala. 444, 19 So. 909, 32 L. R. A. 520; Lindsay v. United States Savings & Loan Association et al., 120 Ala. 172, 24 So. 171, 42 L. R. A. 783; Woodson v. Murdock, 22 Wall. 351, 22 L.Ed. 716; State ex rel. v. Squires, 26 Iowa, 340; Cannon v. Mathes, 8 Heisk. (Tenn.) 504; State v. Miller, 45 Mo. 495; Chiles v. Drake, 2 Metc. (Ky.) 146, 74 Am. Dec. 406; Keller v. State, 11 Md. 525, 69 Am. Dec. 226; Simpson v. Bailey, 3 Or. 515; Lafon v. Dufrocq et al., 9 La. Ann. 350.
In order to determine whether or not two subjects are embraced in this title, it is necessary to ascertain whether the clause "making an appropriation and declaring an emergency" is comprehended by the first clause. It provides for the appointment of additional judges of the district courts of the state where same are found necessary. Could, under such title, an appropriation be made to pay the necessary and actual expenses of such judge incident to the performance of his duties outside of the district for which he was originally appointed? We think so....
To continue reading
Request your trial