State Budget Com'n v. Adams

• Decision Date: 09 June 1933
• Parties: STATE BUDGET COMMISSION et al. v. ADAMS, County Judge, et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

61 S.W.2d 314

249 Ky. 680

STATE BUDGET COMMISSION et al. v. ADAMS, County Judge, et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

June 9, 1933

Appeal from Circuit Court, Fayette County.

Proceeding between State Budget Commission and others and Chester D Adams, County Judge of Fayette County, and others, under Declaratory Judgment Act, to determine constitutionality of Uniform County Budget Act. From judgment holding Uniform County Budget Act constitutional and operative, State Budget Commission and others appeal.

Modified and affirmed.

Bailey P. Wootton, Atty. Gen., Overton S. Hogan, Asst. Atty. Gen and Geo. W. Vaughn, of Lexington, for appellants.

Stoll Muir, Townsend & Park, of Lexington, for appellees.

Robert H. Winn, of Mt. Sterling, and E. D. Stephenson, of Pikeville amici curiae.

DIETZMAN Judge.

This is a suit under the Declaratory Judgment Act (Civ. Code Prac. § 639a--1 to 639a--12) to determine the constitutionality of chapter 24 of the Acts of 1932, known as the Uniform County Budget Act, and, if constitutional, whether or not it is operative. The lower court held the act constitutional and operative, and, from that judgment, this appeal is prosecuted.

The act in question is a very comprehensive one. Among other things, it provides that a county budget commission shall be established in each of the counties of this state. This commission consists of the county judge, county treasurer, and two persons to be appointed by the county judge. It is the duty of this commission to submit to the fiscal court of its county for its consideration the proposed budget of the county for the fiscal year. This is a matter of public record, and any citizen or taxpayer has the right to a public hearing to discuss with the fiscal court the various items recommended by the budget commission before the budget is finally adopted. The budget commission is required by section 5 of the Act to make its recommendations upon certain forms, which section 3 of the act makes it the duty of the state budget commission to furnish to each county budget commission. These forms so furnished by the state budget commission must be uniform in each of the counties of the state. The state budget commission is given by sections 3 and 6 of the act the authority to approve all county budgets proposed by the county budget commissions as to form and arrangement of the budget units. If disapproved, the budget must be rearranged as to form and arrangement by the state budget commission. This authority to so approve or disapprove county budgets as to form and arrangement is vested in the state budget commission for the sole and exclusive purpose of establishing and maintaining in each county a uniform budget system so that the cost of each separate activity of the county government can be ascertained, not only for the information of the people of the state, but also for the people and taxpayers of each county. The act by section 24 further provides that the state inspector and examiner shall install in each county a uniform system of accounting and bookkeeping for the administration of the fiscal affairs of the counties under the provisions of the act, and that uniform blanks, receipts, records, etc., shall be furnished to the persons whose duty it is to administer the fiscal affairs of the county.

It is the contention of the appellants that this act is unconstitutional because it violates sections 51, 230, and 181 of the Constitution. It is their further contention that, if the act be constitutional, it is inoperative because the General Assembly failed to make any appropriation for putting it into operation.

Addressing ourselves to the constitutionality of the act, we find that the argument is made that the act is unconstitutional, first, because its title does not comprise and set forth what is in the body of the act, and hence violates section 51 of our State Constitution, which provides: "No law enacted by the general assembly shall relate to more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title, and no law shall be revised, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred by reference to its title only, but so much thereof as is revised, amended, extended or conferred, shall be re-enacted and published at length."

The title of the act in question is as follows: "An Act relating to the fiscal administration of counties; Providing for a uniform budget system in each county of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, for the administration of the fiscal affairs of the counties; Prescribing the duties of the county judge, county court clerk, county treasurer, county attorney and other officers with reference thereto; creating a county budget commission, and prescribing its duties; amending sections nine hundred and twenty-nine (nine hundred and twenty-nine), nine hundred and thirty-four (nine hundred and thirty-four) of Kentucky Statutes, nineteen hundred and thirty, Carroll's Edition, as amended by Chapter one hundred and fifty-three of the Acts of nineteen hundred and twenty, Session of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, nine hundred and thirty-five (nine hundred and thirty-five), and eighteen hundred and thirty-eight (eighteen hundred and thirty-eight), Kentucky Statutes, nineteen hundred and thirty, Carroll's Edition; and repealing sections nine hundred and thirty-eight (nine hundred and thirty-eight) Kentucky Statutes, nineteen hundred and thirty, Carroll's Edition, and section eighteen hundred and forty a (eighteen hundred and forty a), Kentucky Statutes, nineteen hundred and thirty, Carroll's Edition, as amended by section one of chapter Sixty-seven of Acts of nineteen hundred and sixteen, Session of General Assembly of Commonwealth of Kentucky; Providing for the compensation of county treasurer, and the designating by the fiscal court of depositories for county funds and the fixing of interest rates to be charged by the county; and Providing for penalties for the violation of any of the Provisions of this Act."

It is argued that, inasmuch as the title to this act makes no reference whatever to the state budget commission or to the state inspector and examiner, and gives no notice of any duties that will be by the body of the act imposed upon it and him, the title is not fairly indicative of what may be found in the body of the act, for which reason it is unconstitutional. The scope and effect of section 51 of the Constitution has often been before this court for determination. Construing that section in Thompson v. Commonwealth, 159 Ky. 8, 166 S.W. 623, 624, we said: "The purpose of the constitutional provision was to enable persons reading the title of an act to get a general idea of what the act treated of or contained, and it has come to be a recognized legislative practice for members and others interested in legislation to read the title of acts and gather therefrom, in a general way at least, the subject-matter of the act, and under the authority of this constitutional provision members of the Legislature, as well as the public interested in legislation, have the right to rely on the title as indicating the subject-matter of the act and to assume that the act contains no legislation that is not embraced in a general way by the subject expressed in the title. But if it were allowable to insert sections in an act entirely foreign to the scope of the legislation as expressed in the title, the purpose of the Constitution would be entirely defeated, and much legislation would be enacted that the members would not have approved had they known that it was contained in the act."

In State Board of Health et al. v. Willman, 241 Ky. 835, 45 S.W.2d 458, 459, we said: "The title of the act may be broader than necessary and not be objectionable if it relates to only one subject, but it must be fairly expressive of the context of the act. Where the title is restrictive, matters not a part of or properly connected therewith, as it is fairly and reasonably understood, cannot be incorporated in the act without violating section 51 of the Constitution."

In Wiemer v. Commissioners of Sinking Fund of City of Louisville, 124 Ky. 377, 99 S.W. 242, 244, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 523, the rule is thus stated: "A title to an act is not, in order to meet the requirements of the Constitution bound to contain all of the details of the body of the act. If so, the title would necessarily be as extensive as the body. All that is required is that the body of the act should be so related to the title as to be easily and naturally...