Page:Fletcher v. Oliver.pdf/2

290Rh  Money, in this act, is placed in the same class of adjuncts for building roads and highways as timber, stone, gravel and labor are, and as such, is not revenue in the constitutional sense.

The road act of 1854–5 is not repealed by the act of 1868, and of itself would legalize the road tax in question.

The road act of March 2, 1867, has no application to Pulaski county.

C The clause of the Constitution requiring each act of the Legislature to embrace but one subject, which must be expressed in the title, was designed to prevent the passage of what are known as omnibus bills.

A constitutional grant of power carries with it the right to exercise the means to carry the power into effect.

R The constitutional provision requiring bills for raising revenue to originate in the lower branch of the Legislature, does not apply to the act of 1868.

Hon. T. D. W. YONLEY, Chancellor.

WATKINS & ROSE, RICE & BENJAMIN, for appellant.

The inhabitants of Little Rock are exempt from the county road tax. Acts 1866, p. 34.

To the act of July 16, 1868, which it is said repeals the act on which we rely, we make the following constitutional objections:

1.It was a revenue bill, and originated in the Senate. Const., Art. 5, sec. 19.

2.The act embraces more than one subject not included in its title. People v. Millen, 32 Ill., 181; Hedges v. Rennaker, 3 Metc., (Ky.,) 257; Childs v. Monroe, 4 id., 75; Williams v. Payson, 14 ''La. An., 7; Bonnier v. Steele, 13 id., 433; Wilkins v. Miller, 9 Ind., 100; Tobey v. State, id., 363; Gillespie v. State, id., 380; Rogers v. State, 6 id., 31; Davis v. State, 7 Md., 151; Cannon v. Hemphill, 7 Texas, 184; Mayor v. State, 4 Ga., 26; Laner v. State, 22 Ind., 461; Kuhus v. Krammis, 20 id., 490; Supervisors v. Heenan, 20 Min., 330; Mewherter v. Price, 11 Ind.,'' 199.