16 Utah 100 | Utah | 1897
It appears that the petitioner, James T. Monk, was recorder of the Big Cottonwood mining district, in Salt Lake county, in this state; that a peremptory writ of mandamus was issued by the district court, requiring him to deliver to James C. Jensen, recorder of the county, the records of his district, and, upon his refusal to obey the writ, he was adjudged guilty of a contempt, and committed to prison until he should deliver the records or be discharged in due course of law. It also appears that he was afterwards brought before the court on a writ of habeas corpus, and, upon a hearing, was remanded to prison, to be held in pursuance of the order of commitment. Fx*om this order refusing to liberate him, he has appealed to this court.
The authority of the court below to make the order of imprisonment depends upon the validity of section 8, c. 36, Laws Utah 18!)7, which, so far as involved in this case, is as follows: “The county recorders of the respective counties shall perform the duties heretofore performed by the district mining recorders in such counties, respectively; and the district mining recorder's of each county shall, within thirty days after this act shall take effect, deposit the books and records pertaining to their offices with the county recorder of the county in which the district or the greater part thereof is situated. * * * ” This section requires county recorders to perform the duties before performed by district mining recorders, and also required district recorders, within 30. days after the law took effect, to deposit the books and records pertaining to their offices with the county recorders. These two provisions, the petitioner insists, were not indicated by the title of the act in which they were found, as required by section 23, art. 6, of the state
The law relied upon is entitled “ An act providing for the manner of locating and recording quartz and placer' mining claims.” The purpose expressed in the title was to provide for the manner of locating and recording quartz and placer mining claims. The term “manner,” as used in the title, means the method and way of locating and recording claims, and Includes the instru-mentalities and means to he used in effecting tlieir location and the recording of them. In order that the location notice, the affidavit of labor, the mining rules and regulations, should be recorded as required by the act, it was necessary to provide for a recorder and books in which to record them. The provisions objected to by the petitioner declare that the county recorder shall perform
Petitioner’s counsel cite Ritchie v. Richards, 14 Utah 345, decided by this court. The title of the act in that case was expressed as follows: “An act relating to, and making sundry provisions concerning elections.” Sess. Lavs 1896, p. 369. It provided for appointments to office by the governor, as well as for elections. The officers to be appointed were not election officers, and the provisions for their appointment did not concern elections, and were clearly not embraced in the subject expressed in the title. That decision recognized the constitutional provision limiting bills to one subject, and requiring it to be clearly expressed in the title, as a wholesome and salutary law, that should receive a reasonable interpretation and be rigidly enforced, that legislators and the public may be informed of the purpose of pending bills, and that surreptitious, Incongruous, and inconsiderate laws may be prevented. Sutli. St. Const. §§ 87, 102.
The petitioner also contends that the provisions of the state law above quoted, requiring county recorders to perform the duties performed before by the district mining recorders, and requiring the latter to deposit the books and records of the'ir offices with the county recorders of their respective counties, conflict with a law o'f the United States regulating the disposition of its mineral lands. The claim is that section 2324, Rev. St. U. S., confers the authority upon the miners of the respective
