Thompson v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 14 May 1914
• Parties: THOMPSON v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

166 S.W. 623

159 Ky. 8

THOMPSON v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 14, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Criminal, Common Law and Equity Division.

James Thompson was convicted of robbery, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Logan N. Rock, of Louisville, for appellant.

Jas Garnett, Atty. Gen., and Overton S. Hogan, Asst. Atty. Gen for the Commonwealth.

CARROLL J.

The appellant, under an indictment charging him with the crime of robbery, was found guilty by a jury. After the verdict was returned, and before sentence was passed or judgment entered the appellant filed his affidavit, showing that he was then only 19 years of age, and moved the court to adjudge that he be confined in the state Reform School at Lexington for the time, and in the manner provided by the act of March 26, 1908 (Laws 1908, c. 13), now section 2095a, subsection 19a, of the Kentucky Statutes. The court overruled his motion, and committed him for a period of from 2 to 10 years in the State Reformatory at Frankfort.

The only question submitted on this appeal is the validity of so much of the act of 1908 as relates to the commitment of minor convicts to the House of Reform. The trial court ruled that so much of the act as is here under consideration was unconstitutional, because the act did not conform to section 51 of the Constitution, reading as follows: "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 of 1908 reads: "An act to appropriate money for the benefit of the Houses of Reform, to provide funds to pay the existing deficit and to make improvements at the Houses of Reform." Following the preamble setting out the reasons why a deficit existed and the necessity for additional funds to erect new buildings and equip them, the act, in sections 1-12, appropriates various sums of money for specific equipment and improvements, and provides how the money so appropriated shall be expended.

Section 13 reads: "That any and all juvenile or first offenders of the age of 21 years or under committing any crime whereby punishment in the State Prison or School of Reform is contemplated, shall be sentenced by court of jurisdiction to the House of Reform, and commitment and method of conveying said offenders thereto shall be the same as to State Penitentiaries." Section 14 reads:

"All inmates so sentenced to House of Reform in lieu of State Penitentiary shall be subject to the same parole provisions as govern parole of penitentiary inmates.

Any inmate so sentenced who may be incorrigible, or whose contact with the other inmates may be detrimental, may by the order of board of commissioners be transferred to a State Penitentiary.

Courts of jurisdiction shall fix an indeterminate sentence for minor offenders which shall keep such offenders in confinement until they have reached the age of 21 years, but such offenders by reason of good conduct, industry and obedience to rules of the institution may be earlier discharged or paroled by board of commissioners."

It will be observed that sections 1-12, inclusive, are germane to the subject-matter of the title, but that sections 13 and 14 have not the remotest connection with the title. There is not a word in the title from which any person could infer that the act contained the subject-matter of sections 13 or 14.

There has never come under our notice an act of the Legislature that disregards so thoroughly section 51 of the Constitution as does the legislation contained in these sections. If the validity of these sections should be sustained, so much of section 51 as declares that "No law enacted by the General Assembly shall relate to more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title," would have no meaning or effect whatever, and the Legislature would be at liberty to incorporate in any act, under any title, any number of subjects and any legislation, without reference to whether it was germane to or expressed in the title or not. The title of this act, and the first 12 sections, relate exclusively to the appropriation of money for the benefit of the Houses of Reform, while sections 13 and 14 are devoted entirely to the treatment and punishment of offenders against the law who are under 21 years of age, and it is very evident that, as originally introduced, the act only contained 12 sections, and that while the act was on its passage, sections 13 or 14 were added without giving any thought to the title of the act or to the incongruity between these sections and the title or other sections. It is also manifest that sections 13 and 14 can be eliminated from the act without interfering with or affecting in any manner the subject-matter of the other sections; and, when this can be done, the rule, as laid down in Wiemer v. Com'rs Sinking Fund of Louisville, 124 Ky. 377, 99 S.W. 242, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 523, is: "That when a subject foreign to the title is introduced into the body of an act, if it is so separate and distinct from the remainder of the subject-matter of the legislation that it may be omitted without affecting the otherwise valid portions, then the unconstitutional part will be omitted and the remainder allowed to stand. Such is the case here. Section 2 has no natural connection with the remainder of the act. Its omission leaves a valid and complete statute; and therefore we hold that section 2 is invalid for the reason given, but the remainder of the statute is constitutional." To the same effect are Jones v. Thompson, 12 Bush, 394; Fuqua v. Mullen, 13 Bush, 467; Brown v. Moss, 126 Ky. 833, 105 S.W. 139, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 1288.

It is suggested in argument that, as the title of the act relates to the Houses of Reform, it was permissible, under section 51 of the Constitution, to insert in the body of the act sections containing subject-matter that related in any manner to the Houses of Reform; and, taking this proposition as a basis, it is urged that, as sections 13 and 14 have some relation to the Houses of Reform, they do not offend the Constitution. We have considered many cases in which legislation was assailed on the ground that it was violative of section 51 of the Constitution, and it has often been written that where the title expresses with reasonable certainty the subject-matter of the act, or the subject-matter of the act may, by liberal construction, be said to be expressed in the title, the legislation will be upheld. Or, as said in Hyser v....