Argument for Appellants.

construed to sustain legislation not within the mischief intended to prevent. (State v. Doherty, 3 Ida. 384, 39 Pac. 855; Putnam v. St. Paul, 75 Minn. 514, 78 N. W. 90; Cooley's Const. Lim. 172; Winters v. Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 84 N. W. 788; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 8 Ida. 310, 101 Am. St. 201, 68 Pac. 295; Lewis' Sutherland, Stat. Const., secs. 115118.)

The provisions of the statute involved in this appeal are germane to the subject expressed in the title. The general object and purpose of the law deals with horticulture and the duties of the state board of horticulture, and that is fairly indicated by the title and is sufficient. There is no fraud, deception or "log-rolling" legislation in the act, nor can any be implied. (Kessler v. Fritchman, 21 Ida. 30, 119 Pac. 692; State v. Dolan, 13 Ida. 693, 92 Pac. 995, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 1259; Maule Coal Co. v. Partenheimer, 155 Ind. 100, 55 N. E. 751, 57 N. E. 710.)

The provisions of the act of 1903 all relate, directly or indirectly, to the same subject, have a natural connection, and are not foreign to the subject expressed in the title, and hence they may be united in the same act. (Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, supra; People v. Mullender, 132 Cal. 217, 64 Pac. 299; Inhabitants of Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 2 Sup. Ct. 391, 27 L. ed. 431.)

The constitution does not mean that the title must be an index of the act. (City of Wilson v. Herink, 64 Kan. 607, 68 Pac. 72; Lancy v. King Co., 15 Wash. 9, 45 Pac. 645, 34 L. R. A. 817; Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226, 24 Pac. 383; Ex parte Liddell, 93 Cal. 633, 29 Pac. 251; Lewis' Sutherland, Stat. Const., sec. 121.)

The constitutional provision was intended to simply expedite and facilitate proper legislation, and in order to do so the constitution will not be interpreted in a strict, narrow or technical sense, but reasonably. (Parkinson v. State, 14 Md. 184, 74 Am. Dec. 522; Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 269; State v. Ranson, 73 Mo. 78; Municipality No. 3 v. Michoud, 6 La. Ann. 605; Montgomery Mutual Bldg. Assn. v. Robinson, 69 Ala. 413).

Opinion of the Court-Sullivan, C. J.

This court will only determine the question as to whether the title expresses the subject of the act, and will not criticise the degree of particularity with which the subject of the act is expressed in the title, for that is a matter which is left to the discretion of the legislature. (In re Meyer, 50 N. Y. 504; State v. Town of Union, 33 N. J. L. 350; Whiting v. Mt. Pleasant, 11 Iowa, 482; Indiana Central Ry. Co. v. Potts, 7 Ind. 681; State v. Bowers, 14 Ind. 195.)

Wyman & Wyman, for Respondents.

"The framers of the constitution evidently meant that the title to the act should indicate both to the lawmaker and the citizen the general scope and purpose of the legislation intended, and such title should put the citizen upon notice of the proposed legislation." (Katz v. Herrick, 12 Ida. 1, 86 Pac. 873; Turner v. Coffin, 9 Ida. 338, 74 Pac. 962; State v. Dolan, 13 Ida. 693, 92 Pac. 995, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 1259; Gerding v. Commissioners, 13 Ida. 444, 90 Pac. 357; State v. Butterfield L. S. Co., 17 Ida. 441, 134 Am. St. 263, 106 Pac. 455, 26 L. R. A., N. S., 1224; Kessler v. Fritchman, 21 Ida. 30, 119 Pac. 692; Hailey v. Huston, 25 Ida. 165, 136 Pac. 212; Lewis' Sutherland, Stat. Const., pp. 193, 198.)

SULLIVAN, C. J.-This action was brought to recover damages in the sum of $1,000 on a surety company bond, given under the provisions of an act creating the state board of horticulture (Sess. L. 1903, p. 347), for the alleged failure of the respondent Pioneer Nurseries Company to properly mark and label packages of apple trees with the label or mark showing the true variety of the trees, as required by the provisions of sec. 13 of said act.

The action was brought by the state of Idaho and J. F. McFarland, for the reason that the bond provided by sec. 8 runs to the state as obligee, no provision being contained in the act that any person aggrieved or injured by the fact of a nursery company's failure to comply with the requirements of said sec. 12 can sue thereon as provided by the chapter on "Official Bonds."

Opinion of the Court-Sullivan, C. J.

On demurrer to said complaint, the trial court held that the object and purpose of sec. 13 was not expressed in or embraced within the title of said act, and that said section of the act was unconstitutional for that reason, the court holding that said section was in contravention of sec. 16, art. 3, of the constitution, which section reads as follows:

"Every act shall embrace but one subject, and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title; but if any subject shall be embraced in an act which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be embraced in the title."

It has been repeatedly held by this court that the title to an act under the provisions of said section of the constitution is sufficient if the act treats of but one general subject and that subject is expressed in the title. (State v. Doherty, 3 Ida. 384, 39 Pac. 855; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 8 Ida. 310, 101 Am. St. 201, 68 Pac. 295; State v. Jones, 9 Ida. 693, 75 Pac. 819; Turner v. Coffin, 9 Ida. 338, 74 Pac. 962; Katz v. Herrick, 12 Ida. 1, 86 Pac. 873; Gerding v. Board of Commrs., 13 Ida. 444, 90 Pac. 357; State v. Dolan, 13 Ida. 693, 92 Pac. 995, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 1259; State v. Butterfield L. S. Co., 17 Ida. 441, 134 Am. St. 263, 106 Pac. 455, 26 L. R. A., N. S., 1224; Kessler v. Fritchman, 21 Ida. 30, 119 Pac. 692; Hailey v. Huston, 25 Ida. 165, 136 Pac. 212.)

The purpose of said constitutional provision is to prevent fraud and deception in the enactment of laws; to prevent log-rolling legislation; to avoid inconsistent and incongruous legislation and to reasonably notify legislators and the people of the legislative intent to be enacted in the law. (Cooley's Const. Lim., 6th ed. 172; Lewis' Sutherland on Constitutional Construction, 184.)

The question presented is whether the provisions of said sec. 13 are germane to the subject expressed in the title. The general object and purpose of said law deals with horticulture and the duties of state boards of horticulture. It was intended to protect fruit-growers and the people of the state. The title of the act is as follows:

Opinion of the Court-Sullivan, C. J.

"An act to create and define the duties of a state board of horticultural inspection and the appointment of a state horticultural inspector and deputies; to appropriate money for their expense and defining the duties thereof; to prevent the gift, sale, distribution, transportation, importation or planting of infected trees, vines, plants, cuttings, scions, grafts, pits, buds or other articles and to provide for the disinfection or destruction of the same; to provide for the extirpation of insect pests or fungus diseases found on trees, shrubs, vines, plants, fruit; to provide penalties for failure to comply with. the provisions of this act."

Said act creates and defines the duties of the state board of horticultural inspection and provides for the appointment of state horticultural inspector and deputies and appropriates money for their expenses, and provides penalties for the failure to comply with the provisions of the act.

The 8th section of the act provides that no person, firm or corporation shall engage in or continue in the business of importing or selling within the state any fruit trees, etc., without first making an application therefor to said board. Such application must be in writing and accompanied by a good and satisfactory bond in the sum of $1,000, to be approved by said board, "conditioned on the faithful observance of all the provisions of this act and of the laws of the state of Idaho by such applicant or applicants and their agents and representatives."

Sec. 10 of said act is as follows: "Any person, persons, firms or corporations, his or their agents, who shall bring or import into the state fruit trees, forest trees, vines, plants, shrubs, scions, pits, or other nursery stock with intent to sell or dispose of the same, without first making application to the state board of horticultural inspection, filing the necessary bonds and securing the certificate provided for in section 8 of this act, or who, having imported said fruit trees, forest trees, vines, plants, shrubs, scions, pits or other nursery stock into the state with intent to sell or dispose of the same or any part thereof, without first notifying the state horticultural inspector or the deputy district inspector thereof, or having

Idaho, Vol. 26-22

Opinion of the Court-Sullivan, C. J.

said fruit trees, forest trees, vines, plants, shrubs, scions, pits or other nursery stock fumigated, as provided in section 9 of this act, or where found infested shall fail or refuse to destroy or disinfect the same, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided by section 14 of this act.'

Sec. 13 of said act provides as follows: "Any person or persons shipping fruit trees or trees of any kind, shrubs, vines, scions, cuttings or plants within the state shall affix to each package, bundle or parcel containing the same a distinct mark, stamp or label, showing the name of the shipper or grower, the locality where grown, and the variety of said trees, shrubs, vines, grafts, scions, cuttings, plants or buds;

Section 14 provides, among other things, as follows: "Any person, persons, dealers or shippers . . . . who shall sell or offer for sale, gift, distribution, transportation or planting

or who shall refuse or neglect to attach a distinct mark or label as hereinbefore provided, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than twenty-five or more than three hundred dollars. All sums so collected shall be paid into the state treasury."

It will be observed from the provisions of said act that it prohibits not only the importation and sale of infected fruit trees, but it requires the person shipping fruit trees into the state to "affix a distinct mark, stamp or label showing the name of the shipper or grower and the locality where grown and the variety of said trees," and in addition to a civil action which the injured person has in the bond provided for by sec. 8 of the act, the state has a criminal action against the shipper "who shall refuse or neglect to attach a distinct mark or label as herein provided." The bond required by the provisions of sec. 8 is "conditioned for the faithful observance of all the provisions of this act and of the laws of the state of Idaho by said applicant or applicants and their agents and representatives." Now, said act provides that the person or persons shipping fruit trees within the state shall affix to each package, etc., the name of the shipper or