State v. McKinney
| Decision Date | 23 January 1904 |
| Citation | 74 P. 1095,29 Mont. 375 |
| Parties | STATE v. McKINNEY. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Commissioners' opinion. Appeal from District Court, Lewis and Clarke County J. M. Clements, Judge.
L McKinney was convicted of conveying and selling milk and cream without a license, and appeals. Affirmed.
Nolan & Loeb, for appellant.
Jas Donovan, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appeal from final judgment. A complaint was filed against defendant in justice court, alleging that he "willfully and unlawfully conveyed milk and cream in a vehicle for the purpose of selling the same, and did sell the same, in the county of Lewis and Clarke without first procuring a license as provided by law." Upon this complaint a warrant was issued. The defendant was arrested, and demurred to the complaint. The demurrer was overruled, and defendant entered a plea of not guilty. The case was tried, and resulted in a judgment against defendant. On appeal to the district court the case was again tried, by the court sitting without a jury--jury trial having been expressly waived--and judgment passed against the defendant, from which this appeal is taken.
The prosecution was conducted under chapter 120, p. 226, of the Laws of 1903, entitled "An act to create the office of meat and milk inspector for the state of Montana, and prescribing his powers and duties and compensation therefor." The only part of this act which is brought into controversy by this appeal is section 15 thereof, which the attorneys for the appellant urge is unconstitutional, on the four following grounds: (1) Because the license provided in section 15 is a tax, which can only be collected by the county treasurer, and not by the inspector; (2) because the law acts unequally, and the classifications are unjust and unreasonable; (3) because the law allows exemptions of a part of a class from payment of any fees; (4) because the title of the bill is defective.
Section 15 of this act which is attacked is in the following language:
"Any person, persons, or corporation, in counties in which a meat and milk inspector is appointed, who conveys milk or cream in vehicles of any character whatsoever, for the purpose of selling it in such counties, shall annually, before the 1st day of June, be licensed by the meat and milk inspector of said county to sell milk and cream within the limits thereof, and shall pay to such inspector for each and every vehicle of whatsoever character used in the sale or delivery of such milk or cream or dairy product, the sum of twelve dollars ($12.00) per annum, payable quarterly in advance, which sums shall be paid into the State Treasury by such inspector, quarterly, as received, to be turned into the general fund, and receipted therefor by said Treasurer to said inspector.
Subdivision 1. Licenses shall be issued only in the name of the owner of the vehicles, carriages or other conveyances.
In considering the questions raised on this appeal, we shall not follow the order in which they are treated in the briefs, but shall first take up the last one argued, viz., is the act in contravention of section 23, art. 5, of the Constitution? This section is as follows: "No bill, except general appropriation bills, and bills for the codification and general revision of the laws, shall be passed containing more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title; but if any subject shall be embraced in any act which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed." It is insisted that the imposition of a license fee upon persons selling milk, or the collection thereof, is not "clearly (or at all) expressed" in the title of the act, and therefore the act, to this extent, is unconstitutional and void.
For a clear understanding of the question under consideration, it seems important to announce a few general legal principles, viz.:
First. The purposes of this constitutional provision are to prevent the Legislature from the enactment of laws surreptitiously; to prevent "logrolling" legislation; to give to the people general notice of the character of proposed legislation, so they may not be misled; to give all interested an opportunity to appear before committees of the Legislature and be heard upon the advisability of the proposed legislation; to advise members of the Legislature of the character of the proposed legislation, and give each an opportunity to intelligently watch the course of the proposed bill; to guard against fraud in legislation, and against false and deceptive titles. These purposes have been so plainly announced by this court in numerous opinions that a statement of the rule and a citation of cases would seem sufficient. State v. Brown, 29 Mont. 179, 74 P. 366; Western Ranches v. Custer Co., 29 Mont. ___, 72 P. 659; State v. Courtney, 27 Mont. 378, 71 P. 308; State v. Anaconda Co., 23 Mont. 498, 59 P. 854; Jobb v. Meagher Co., 20 Mont. 424, 51 P. 1034; State v. Mitchell, 17 Mont. 67, 42 P. 100.
Second. While all the provisions of the Constitution are "mandatory and prohibitory," yet the courts, bearing in mind that the Legislature is a co-ordinate branch of the government, and that its action, if fair, should be sustained, have given this section of the Constitution a liberal construction, so as to not interfere with or impede proper legislative functions. Western Ranches v. Custer Co., 29 Mont. ___, 72 P. 659; State v. Courtney, 27 Mont. 378, 71 P. 308; State v. Board of Control (Minn.) 88 N.W. 533; State v. Power (Neb.) 88 N.W. 769; Ballentyne v. Wickersham, 75 Ala. 533; Van Horn v. State, 46 Neb. 62, 64 N.W. 365; Lien v. Board of Com'rs, 80 Minn. 58, 82 N.W. 1094.
Third. The Legislature is the judge, to a great extent, at least, of the title which it will prefix to a bill; and the court has no right to hold a title void because, in its opinion, a better one might have been used. State v. Board of Control (Minn.) 88 N.W. 533; State v. Power (Neb.) 88 N.W. 769; State v. Bemis (Neb.) 64 N.W. 348.
Fourth. The title is generally sufficient if the body of the act treats only, directly or indirectly, of the subjects mentioned in the title, and of other subjects germane thereto, or of matters in furtherance of or necessary to accomplish the general objects of the bill, as mentioned in the title. Details need not be mentioned. The title need not contain a complete list of all matters covered by the act. Park v. Modern Woodmen, 181 Ill. 214, 54 N.E. 932; State v. Tibbets, 52 Neb. 228, 71 N.W. 990, 66 Am. St. Rep. 492; Newark v. Mt. Pleasant, etc., Co., 58 N. J. Law, 168, 33 A. 396; Barksdale v. Laurens, 58 S.C. 413, 36 S.E. 661; Prison Ass'n v. Ashby, 93 Va. 667, 25 S.E. 893; Weber v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 72 S.W. 30.
Fifth. If the court, after an application of all these principles, is still in doubt as to the constitutionality of the bill, it should sustain the act. State v. Camp Sing, 18 Mont. 128, 44 P. 516, 32 L. R. A. 635, 56 Am. St. Rep. 551; Cooley's Const. Lim. 182; State v. Clancy, 20 Mont. 498, 52 P. 267.
The purpose of the act was the very laudable one of providing for the inspection of meat and dairy products sold by the producers to the consumers within the state and to prevent a sale of any of the same, except such as might, after inspection, be found to be entirely healthful. The act provides for the inspection of fresh meats, fish, and poultry; and, after providing the necessary means for that purpose, it takes up the inspection of dairies and dairy products. Section 9 makes it the duty of the inspector to inspect each dairy supplying milk to the public in his county for human consumption not less than once in every month during the calendar year, and provides that he shall, every 90 days, issue to each person or persons or corporation supplying milk a certificate of health, which shall include a certificate of the sanitary condition of the dairy every 90 days. Section 10 provides that "it shall be unlawful *** to feed unwholesome food of whatsoever character to his dairy cows, and that each dairyman supplying milk to the public must have for each cow, his certificate of health, including the tuberculum test made by said inspector, stating that each cow is free from tuberculosis or consumption, or any other infectious disease whatsoever." Section 11 provides that it is the duty of the inspector to prohibit any one from selling milk whenever, in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial