State ex rel. Commissioners of Hamilton County v. Ream

• Decision Date: 18 November 1884
• Citation: 21 N.W. 398,16 Neb. 681
• Parties: STATE OF NEBRASKA, EX REL. COMMISSIONERS OF HAMILTON COUNTY, v. W. K. REAM
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

21 N.W. 398

16 Neb. 681

STATE OF NEBRASKA, EX REL. COMMISSIONERS OF HAMILTON COUNTY, v. W. K. REAM

Supreme Court of Nebraska

November 18, 1884

ORIGINAL application for mandamus.

Peremptory writ awarded.

A. J Rittenhouse and Hainer & Kellogg, for relators.

A. W Agee and Harwood, Ames & Kelly, for respondent.

OPINION

MAXWELL, J.

This is an application on notice for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the defendant, who is county judge of Hamilton county, to report his fees to the county commissioners as required by "An act to regulate the fees of county judges, county clerks, sheriffs, and county treasurers," approved Feb. 15, 1877. The defendant was elected county judge in 1881 and re-elected in 1883. He seems to have reported the fees during his first term of office, but at the commencement of the second he discovered objections to the statute and refused to report further unless compelled to do so. The sole question presented is, whether or not the act in question is constitutional--that is, whether or not the title of the act is broad enough to include the subject matter. The first section of the act reads as follows: "That every county judge, county clerk, county treasurer, and the sheriff of each county, whose fees shall in the aggregate exceed the sum of fifteen hundred dollars each for county judge and county clerk, and two thousand dollars each for sheriffs and county treasurers per year, shall pay such excess into the treasury of the county in which they hold their respective offices; Provided, however, That in counties having over twenty-five thousand inhabitants, the county treasurer shall receive the sum of three thousand dollars per annum, and shall be furnished by the county commissioners the necessary clerks or assistants, whose combined salaries shall not exceed the sum of twenty-four hundred dollars per annum. The sheriff shall receive the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars per annum, also the necessary jail guard, and one deputy, and the salary of such deputy shall be nine hundred dollars per annum. The county clerks of such counties shall receive the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars per annum, and he shall have one deputy whose salary shall be one thousand dollars per annum; And provided further, That (if) the duties of any of the officers above named in any county of this state shall be such as to require one or more assistants or deputies, then such officers may retain the amount necessary to pay for such assistants or deputies, not exceeding the sum of seven hundred dollars per year, except as above provided in counties having over twenty-five thousand inhabitants, for each of such deputies or assistants, but in no instance shall such officers receive more than the fees by them respectively and actually collected, nor shall any money be retained for deputy services unless the same be actually paid to such deputy for his service; And provided further, That neither of the officers above named shall have any deputy or assistants unless the board of county commissioners shall, upon application, have found the same to be necessary, and the board of county commissioners shall in all cases prescribe the number of deputies or assistants, the time for which they may be employed, and the compensation they are to receive." Comp. Stat., chap. 28, § 42.

The attorneys for the defendant contend that the act is in conflict with sec. 2, art. III. of the constitution, which declares that "No bill shall contain more than one subject, and the same shall be clearly expressed in its title." It is said that the title of the act above quoted not only fails to express the subject of the act but is actually misleading.

The rule is well settled in this state that the purpose of the act must be indicated by the title. Where, however, a bill has but one general object it will be sufficient if the subject is fairly expressed in the title. White v. Lincoln, 5 Neb. 505. Boggs v. Washington Co., 10 Neb. 297. Ives v. Norris, 13 Neb. 252. Holmberg v. Hauck, ante p. 337. We adhere to those decisions.

Webster defines the word "regulate" as "to adjust by rule, method, or established mode; to direct by rule or restriction; to subject to governing principles or laws." The definition of the word "govern" one of the synonyms he gives: "1. To direct and control etc. 2. To regulate; to influence; to direct; to restrain; to manage; as to govern the life or...