*1 Plaintiffs, al., Eugene SMITH P. et Secretary HANSEN, P.
Governor Clifford Thyra Thomson, Min State Auditor State Cop Mitchell, Everett nie Treasurer State enhaver, Superintendent Public individuals, Shaw, Instruction Cecil Wyoming Liquor Commission as the Wyoming Liq Harms, Carl Director of Commission, Defendants. uor
No. 3190 Wyoming. Court
Oct. *2 constitutionality Ac- enactment.
tually, parties challenge who now its constitutionality assert nine different some violations provisions of constitutional bill, connection with passage this which originated as was en- S.F.No.103 and acted as Enrolled Act No. Senate. Some of the contentions think are obviously merit, without will not be and it necessary for us to all. review them We do find, however, question pre- that a serious is sented Wyo- in the claim that Art. § Constitution, ming pro- was violated. vides : * * *
Section 24. “No shall passed containing more than one subject, which shall be ex- Roncalio, Smyth, & R. Graves pressed title; John in its any subject but if Smyth, God- Graves, E. Paul B. Charles is embraced act is not frey, Cheyenne, plaintiffs. title, such act shall Gen., Raper, Atty. Cheyenne, only F. be void as to so much thereof as John expressed.” shall defendants. not sobe case, In this originated S.F.No.103 PARKER, J., Before and HARNS- C. following was introduced with the title: BERGER, McINTYRE, GRAY and JJ. “AN ACT amend and re-enact Sec- Mr. McINTYRE delivered 12-5, Wyoming Statutes, tion re- Justice opinion of the court. lating to the excise tax on alcoholic liquors possession brought Suit was several beer whole- intoxicating liquors by liquor holders of against salers in Wyoming members of permits licenses or so as to Liquor Commissionand its direc- importation transportation or into tor, Harms, seeking enjoin col- Carl within State of Wyoming of un- gal- per lection of an four cents additional by any per- taxed lon in excise taxes on malt son; for enforcement provisions 3(a), of Ch. S.L. § penalty thereof and violation tax Wyoming, purport to increase this thereof.” per per gallon from two cents to six cents things. (1) This title seems to do three gallon. un- Plaintiffs claim the section is 12-5, W.S.1957, It reminds the reader that constitutional as the tax insofar increase in relates to the excise on tax alcoholic on malt is concerned. The possession uors and untaxed intoxi- legislature to make an increase is liquors by holders of licenses questioned, procedures by but permits; (2) purpose it advises that the accomplished challenged. increase was are of the bill is amend and re-enact 12-5 proper The district court made a determina- “so as to or trans- question tion of facts and to us the reserved portation into state of untaxed intoxi- to whether is Ch. unconstitutional on cating liquors; it advises that en- passage. its face or in its forcement and for violation are The Governor chose allow this provided for. approval, law his veto become without saying provisions he felt its as a 20 of Art. Wyoming whole are Section Con stitution, question is prohibits legislature desirable but some there as to from al- expressed, 12-5 but the process amending during amending a tering is lim- expression is that it change with the trouble passage, manner in such certain purpose amending in a apparent the ited to a purpose, and *3 respect only. pro- to purpose this instance original in was provide importations and to certain hibit Generally speaking, if the matter for enforcement. supplemen amendatory contained in an or the nothing in title or in find the We act, original a tary the germane act is to indicate original bill which would of the of the reference in title to the section the excise tax on an intention to increase the supplemented ac to be amended or statute by objective was added That curately general subject the indicates passage. during the course of amendment in violation legislation and is not Also, objective of another provision requiring a clear constitutional —that by added for identification cards —was subject. Morrow v. expression of such passage legisla- during the amendment 601, Diefenderfer, Wyo., 384 P.2d 603; ture. 683; 681, Tobin, 355, Wyo. 226 P. 31 State v. County v. Board of of Laramie two ob- Com’rs. of these new the addition With 605, Stone, 280, Wyo. P. 7 51 607. title was jectives legislation, the thusly: amended to read Also, it has held that such a been a providing for “AN1 ACT reference, the na although specifying not card for liquor purchase identification adequate, amendment, is where ture of the twenty- persons passed have their who subject of actual amendment matter the birthday prescribing (21st) first provision “germane” that of is to procur penalty statements for false theory being the reader amended —the that card; to amend ing the identification enough by get will information of the bill 12-5, Wyoming and re-enact Section caption at the earlier law and the looking 1957, Statutes, relating to the excise City amendatory Dickison bill. v. pos liquors and the tax on alcoholic Antonio, Tex.Civ.App., S.W.2d of 349 San session 640, 643; Bingham, Hammond v. 83 Ida per by licenses the holders 314, 1078, 1082; Thompson v. ho 362 P.2d to mits so as Corporation, Equipment Commercial Credit into within the transportation 377, 769; 761, Berry 169 N.W.2d v. Neb. 99 Wyoming of untaxed intoxi 1010, Koehler, P.2d 1017. 84 Idaho 369 pro by person; and any Smith, English Wyo. v. 71 253 also viding enforcement thereof Wyo. rehearing denied 71 P.2d violation thereof.” 365; Pelosi, 68 Ariz. and State 199 P.2d 134-135. expressed title therefore The amended cards, pertaining to identification purpose application, general rule has no how- This express purpose in- to still did but it ever, when the nature of the amendment ac- Even the excise crease tually specified is and the title of the bill pretend we do not to accepted, which if we particular change in (cid:127)indicates that a attorney general do, argument of the proposed. example, original act is As for objectives new the two that the addition original title amended title both “original purpose” change the S.F.No.103, failed specifies title that 12- would still be confronted with prohibit” is “so as to cer- amended 3, 24. in Art. prohibitions two It does not indicate 12-5 is to tain acts. respect. other be amended prohibited legislature only is the Not attorney no general’s office shows us passing a bill from “contain- section that and no for the subject,” but it also reason believe than one ing more purpose “clearly proposition that this limited necessary that to be Here, amending, “so forbid- purpose in its title.” Limitations, acts, p. (8th include all Ed.), Constitutional could be construed den may legislature act. to the germane effect since the subject matters what it does, however, upon reliance make the title to an restrictive as place act as pleases, may of Com’rs v. Stone it is obvious sometimes said in the Board was case, supra, preclude In that case an so a title as to matters 51 P. frame at attempt might propriety entire been was made to state with have em- effect, braced, effect, of the amenda- but which now be excluded unnecessarily found the statement tory but the court because restrictive entirely meaningless enlarge scope and therefore the courts cannot to be *4 of of pronounced it harmless and no effect. the title. support any fail to find the Stone
We The conclusion in Nebraska has been that position, and know for defendants’ case an act is unconstitutional and void if the authority no other reliable therefor. title is not enough broad to include the subject legislation. matter of In other hand, the we consider On the other words, Sutherland, as stated in 1 Statutory that following holding cases for Construction, 1908, p. (3d Ed.), 349 while changes particularizes a title the when need title not set out nature the amendatory in an are to be made which made, changes does, if body it specified, legislation is limited matters amendatory may any act not contain other beyond anything and this limitation would matter, germane however it may be to the germane might regardless of how it be void subject original as act a whole. be to act: supra, Bingham, at 362 P. Hammond v. Sutherland, page, on the same further 1082; Price, County Hillsborough v. 2d points selected, out that aif narrow title is 912, 915; Thompson Fla.App., 149 So.2d go beyond the amendment should not its Equipment Corpora v. Commercial Credit scope. Otherwise, the function of the title 769; tion, supra, Armistead at N.W.2d 99 is defeated. Karsch, 137, 960, v. 192 Tenn. 237 S.W.2d In the recent case of Morrow v. State, 962; Tex.Civ.App., Praetorians v. Diefenderfer, supra, 603, at 384 Chief 565, 299, 300, 184 affirmed 143 Tex. S.W.2d re-emphasized Parker an earlier 973, 596; Justice S.W.2d A.L.R. ex 186 158 pronouncement to object the effect that the Emerson, 233, Terry v. 1 40 rel. Mor ford 3, 24, surprise of Art. prevent is to 233, 154, 158-160; Hays A.2d Fed Del. 8 v. legislation, by provisions fraud in caused Co., 169, Chemical eral 151 Tenn. 268 S.W. a bill of no gives title intimation. 884; 883, People rel. ex v. Corscadden Also, opinion by an written former Chief Howe, 617, App.Div. 604, 88 84 N.Y.S. af Blume In West Highway re 1116, 499, 1114, firmed 177 N.Y. 69 Justice N.E. Sanitary Improvement District, and 77 664; 66 L.R.A. State v. Schultz Gas-Fix 384, Wyo. 495, 500, 317 P.2d makes it clear Co., 58, 243, &ture Art-Metal Md. 83 34 A. that the title to a bill should not be mislead 244; ell, 443, Davey Ruff 162 Pa. 29 v. A. ing give surprise deception, rise to 894, 896; Niles v. Schoolcraft Circuit specific, if it is not entitled to the 328, 773; Judge, 102 Mich. 60 N.W. interpretation prevail liberal which would Jones, v. Ga. 87 13 S.E. Johnson otherwise. Klawans, 262. also v. 225 Md. Jacobs 680; 169 A.2d and Troutman v. only title, bar, Not does the in the case at 459, 212 Crippen, Tenn. S.W.2d 35. fail to indicate that the amount of excise Nebraska, Court of in an malt changed, is to be but it again earlier case and Thompson conveys impression 12-5 Equipment Commercial Corporation Credit respect being only, amended in one e. i. above, 769, ap- case cited at N.W.2d as “so or trans- proved language now found in 1 Cooley, portation untaxed 12-2, W.S.1957, misleading defines alcoholic Section is therefore
The title spirituous liquor meaning as or fermented then surprise. It follows gives rise beverage purposes intended con- beyond fluid are provisions that those title, percentum of alco- taining be more than four subject, as volume, by beverage mean hol and malt general inoperative, since held to wholly any fluid manufactured from upon notice of put public not be would or in substitute therefor reading from act from contents of the Price, percentum of al- than one containing more Hillsborough v. County of title. See provides that the cohol volume. also Fla.App., So.2d liquor,” “alcoholic “intoxicating words the fact that Aside from uor,” “spirituous beverage,” and “alcoholic beyond the provisions passed contains liquor” synonymous in shall be construed as title, appears subject expressed also Thus, meaning definition. that both the to make them alcoholic are so defined as namely: objects, distinct itself two embrace they As such are to be construed liquor purchase *5 synonymously liquor, intoxicating al- with card; that of amend and identification liquor. beverage, spirituous and It coholic 12-5, contravenes This ing W.S.1957. § originally as follow that the both says constitution Art. of the words, by using and as titled amended subject. bill embrace but one a shall “relating the excise tax on alcoholic situation, we apparent In view of this possession and of untaxed intoxi- uors declare Ch. have no alternative but liquors, liquor licenses by holders of 1963, unconstitutional Wyoming, S.L. of perimts so as to manifest of the in toto because and void transportation into or within the State choosing between impossibility of the court Wyoming holding obj the act valid ectives and the two person; and for enforce- and void other. as to one for violation ment thereof Huntley, Power, 39 Wash.2d Inc. v. thereof,” directly referred 173, 178-179. taxing of malt as well as the excise is there- district court answer to the The wine, brandy, taxing whisky, the excise unconstitutional 194 is that Ch. fore rum, liquids components gin, or other set forth. herein the reasons percentum four containing more than by volume. alcohol HARNSBERGER concur- Mr. Justice cannot, therefore, be said that the title It only. the result ring in amendatory act original or failed to of the only in result. concur I able to am clearly express the bill deal- opinion finds title of the majority tax ing an increase the excise on with in- an indicate intention act does Furthermore, malt reference excise tax on crease title well as amendment in the says nothing in- about the title It is true 12-5, expressly deals with the to § tax, it was sufficient creasing the excise but liquors, tax of an excise on malt imposition clearly expressed the inten- that the compliance Art. with a sufficient was 12-5, re-enact W.S. amend and tion to Constitution insofar as Wyoming on alcoholic to the excise tax relating excise tax on malt amendment liquors. It immaterial whether the was concerned. was increase, decrease, or abolish even would altogether. however, the tax must, acknowledged of the identification card mat- however, addition finding the importantly, More title and ter, in the nothing both indicating an there was subject foreign to injected a excise tax- excise to deal with intention therefore, and, was violation Art liquors, challenge. ation subject to 3,§ As Constitution.
pointed Wyo., Gray, F.2d out Bell
924, 926, part “a is not neces- void law
sarily legis- void as whole and whether
lative should unconstitution- be declared portion in-
al as a whole thereof is when depends primarily upon the intention
valid legislature.” legis- In this case the strong history gives of the act such
lative por-
indication that tax neither excise
tion nor the card identification would other,
have without the been enacted province beyond judicial
it is down strike standing
the unconstitutional leave Therefore,
constitutional. the entire act held void.
must be *6 WITZEL, Appellant
Ethel K. (Plaintiff below), (also Edith
Edith Bell WITZEL known as Witzel, Witzel) B. and Edith Bell the Ex Witzel, ecutrix of the of Albert W. Estate deceased, Appellees (Defendants below), Watkins, W. Witzel and Una
Maurice Witzel . Defendants below
No. 3154. Wyoming. Court
Oct.