Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. State, 33648
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | OTT; FINLEY; DONWORTH |
| Citation | 49 Wn.2d 520,304 P.2d 676 |
| Parties | WASHINGTON TOLL BRIDGE AUTHORITY, a public instrumentality of the State of Washington, Plaintiff, v. The STATE of Washington, and the taxpayers, property owners, and citizens of the state, including nonresidents owning property or subject to taxation in the state, and all other persons, partnerships, associations, and corporations having or claiming any right, title, or interest in or to any property to be affected by the issuance of the Tacoma-Seattle-Everett Toll Road Revenue Bonds, Series of 1955, or by the construction of the Tacoma-Seattle-Everett Toll Road or to be affected in any way thereby, and System Parking Service, Inc., Defendants and Relators, The Superior Court of the State of Washington for Thurston County, Honorable Raymond W. Clifford, Judge, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 33648,33648 |
| Decision Date | 04 December 1956 |
Page 520
of the State of Washington, Plaintiff,
v.
The STATE of Washington, and the taxpayers, property owners,
and citizens of the state, including nonresidents owning
property or subject to taxation in the state, and all other
persons, partnerships, associations, and corporations having
or claiming any right, title, or interest in or to any
property to be affected by the issuance of the
Tacoma-Seattle-Everett Toll Road Revenue Bonds, Series of
1955, or by the construction of the Tacoma-Seattle-Everett
Toll Road or to be affected in any way thereby, and System
Parking Service, Inc., Defendants and Relators,
The Superior Court of the State of Washington for Thurston
County, Honorable Raymond W. Clifford, Judge, Respondent.
[304 P.2d 677] Don Eastvold,
Page 521
Atty. Gen., John S. Robinson Asst. Atty. Gen., for relator.Lycette, Diamond & Sylvester, Lyle L. Iversen, Seattle, for relator System Parking Service, Inc.
Weter, Roberts & Shefelman, Harold S. Shefelman, Seattle, for respondent Toll Bridge Authority.
OTT, Justice.
Chapter 268, Laws of 1955, p. 1092, RCW 47.59, purports to grant two additional powers to the Washington toll bridge authority (hereinafter referred to as the authority): (1) To provide a procedure for the establishing and financing of toll roads generally, and (2), specifically, to establish and provide for the financing of a toll road from a point south of and through Tacoma, thence through Seattle to a point south of Everett.
Section 17 of the act provides a special court procedure whereby 'The authority may * * * have its authority to issue bonds * * * and the legality of all proceedings in connection therewith * * * determined * * *.' The act further provides that, if any of its provisions be declared unconstitutional, such provisions shall be severable and not enforced.
The authority commenced this action to determine the validity of proposed bonds for the financing of the authorized Tacoma-Seattle-Everett toll road.
System Parking Service, Inc., and the attorney general (representing the state) each appeared and resisted the petition, alleging that the act is unconstitutional; that certain of its severable sections are unconstitutional, and that the authority had acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
The cause was tried to the court. It determined that § 13 and a portion of § 17 were unconstitutional. The remaining sections of the act were declared constitutional, and the
Page 522
authority was adjudicated to be legally authorized to issue bonds. This review followed.The attorney general, representing the state, makes four assignments of error, and System Parking Service, Inc., make eleven. All of the assignments may be classified under two general subjects: (a) The entire [304 P.2d 678] act is unconstitutional, and (b) certain of the severable sections of the act are unconstitutional.
With reference to the assignments of error classified under 'a' (the entire act is unconstitutional), it is contended that the toll road act violates Art. II, § 19, of the state constitution, which provides: 'No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.'
This constitutional provision contains two mandates to the legislature: (1) That a bill contain no more than one general subject, and (2) that such single subject be expressed in the title.
With reference to (2), does the title indicate the subject or subjects contained in the body of the act?
The title of chapter 268, Laws of 1955, p. 1092, reads in part as follows:
'An Act to facilitate vehicular traffic in the state of Washington by providing for the acquisition, construction, improvement, extension, reconstruction, maintenance, repair and operation of toll road projects by the Washington toll bridge authority; defining the powers and duties of the Washington toll bridge authority, cities, towns and other political subdivisions and agencies of the state with respect to such toll road projects; specifically authorizing and establishing the location of the Tacoma-Seattle-Everett toll road project and pledging a portion of the excise tax on motor vehicle fuels to assist the financing thereof; * * *.'
In one of the earliest opinions where this issue was presented, we stated:
'* * * the legislature must be the judge of the scope which they will give to the word 'subject,' and * * * so long as the title embraces but one subject, it is not inimical to such constitutional provision [Art. II, § 19], even although the subject as thus used contains any number of subsubjects.' Marston v. Humes, 1891, 3 Wash. 267, 275, 28 P. 520, 523.
Page 523
In DeCano v. State, 1941, 7 Wash.2d 613, 627, 110 P.2d 627, 634, we said:
'* * * The legislature may, if it chooses, adopt a very broad and comprehensive title in a bill, in which case great liberality will be indulged to hold that any subject reasonably germane to such title may be embraced within the body of the bill.'
In State ex rel. Bugge v. Martin, 1951, 38 Wash.2d 834, 232 P.2d 833, 835, we held that a title similar to the one at bar constituted a general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington Federation of State Employees v. State, 62082-2
...body of the bill". De Cano v. State, 7 Wash.2d 613, 627, 110 P.2d 627 (1941); Washington Toll Bridge Auth. v. State, 49 Wash.2d 520, 523, 304 P.2d 676 (1956). The constitution is not violated even if the general subject contains several incidental subjects or subdivisions. State v. Grisby, ......
-
Garfield Cnty. Transp. Auth. v. State, 98320-8
...a state agency to establish and operate a system of toll roads). Wash. Toll Bridge Auth. v. State , 49 Wash.2d 520, 521, 523-25, 304 P.2d 676 (1956). Similarly, we found two subjects when an initiative combined a one-time refund of taxes with systematic changes to the property tax assessmen......
-
Amalgamated Transit v. State, 69433-8.
...627, 110 P.2d 627 (1941); accord Wash. Fed'n, 127 Wash.2d at 555-56, 901 P.2d 1028; Wash. Toll Bridge Auth. v. State, 49 Wash.2d 520, 523, 304 P.2d 676 (1956); State ex rel. Schofield v. Easterday, 182 Wash. 209, 212, 46 P.2d 1052 (1935); Percival v. Cowychee & Wide Hollow Irr. Dist., 15 Wa......
-
Kunath v. City of Seattle, 79447-7-I
...in the measure itself, i.e., whether the measure contains unrelated laws.").91 Washington Toll Bridge Auth. v. State, 49 Wash.2d 520, 525, 304 P.2d 676 (1956).92 Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass’n v. City of Seattle, 6 Wash. App. 2d 928, 938, 432 P.3d 434 (2018) (citing Wash. Ass’n for Substance Abu......