Cited by

The constitutional provision ought to be practically and liberally construed.” In Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 577, 578 , , 28 A. S. R. 382, we said: “* * * To constitute duplicity of subject, an act must embrace two or more dissimilar and discordant subjects that by no fair intendment can be considered as having any legitimate connection with or relation to each other.

In Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , , 28 A. S. R. 382, we said: “All that is necessary is that the act should embrace some one general subject; and by this is meant, merely, that all matters treated of should fall under some one general idea, be so connected with or related to each other, either logically or in popular understanding

All matters dealt with by this act have “a logical or natural connection.” They are factually akin to one another and so present nothing “dissimilar and discordant.” Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 577 , , 28 A. S. R. 382.

Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , , 28 A. S. R. 382.

Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , , 28 A. S. R. 382; 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

See also Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , , 28 A. S. R. 382; State v. Wong Hing, 176 Minn. 151 , ; Lyman v. Chase, 178 Minn. 244, 251 , ; State v. Helmer, 169 Minn. 221 , .

State v. McGraw, 163 Minn. 154 , ; State v. People’s Ice Co. 124 Minn. 307 , ; Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , , 28 A. S. R. 382; Kerst v. Nelson, 171 Minn. 191 , , 54 A. L. R. 495.

Gillitt v. McCarthy, 34 Minn. 318 , ; Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , , 28 A. S. R. 382; State v. Bridgeman & Russell Co. 117 Minn. 186 , , Ann. Cas.

In Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , , 28 Am.

t at variance with the one so expressed, but are consonant therewith.” In Gillitt v. McCarthy, 34 Minn. 318 , , it is said: “The insertion in a law of matters which may not be verbally indicated by its title, if suggested by it, or connected with or proper to the more full accomplishment of the object so indicated, is held to be in accordance with its spirit.” In Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , , 28 Am.

Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , , 28 Am.

765 ; Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 57 , .

Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , ; State v. Sharp, 121 Minn. 381 , ; State v. People’s Ice Co. 124 Minn. 307 , .

The following language of Justice Mitchell in Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , , 28 Am.

765 ; Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , , 28 Am.

“All that is necessary is that the act should embrace some one general subject; * * * that all matters treated of should * * * be so connected with or related to each other, either logically or in popular understanding, as to be parts of, or germane to, one general subject.” Mitchell, J. in Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 577 , , 28 Am.

“To constitute duplicity of subject,” said Justice Mitchell in Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , 50 N. W. *250 923 , “an act must embrace two or more -dissimilar and discordant subjects, that by no fair intendment can be considered as having any legitimate connection with or relation to each other.” And see In re Piedmont Avenue East, 59 Minn. 522 , ; State v. Starkey, 49 Minn. 503

The general principles, as bearing particularly upon the sufficiency of a general title, such as that here under consideration, are clearly stated by Judge MITCHELL in the case of Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , , in the following language: “The term ‘subject,’ as used in the Constitution, is to be given a broad and extended meaning, so as to allow the Legislature full scope to include in one act all matters having a logical 'or natural connection.

of Ramsey Co. v. Heenan, 2 Minn. 281 (330); State v. Kinsella, 14 Minn. 395 (524); State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 ; Boyle v. Vanderhoof, 45 Minn. 31 , ; Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , ; State v. Chapel, 63 Minn. 535 , ; State v. Board of Con *377 trol, 85 Minn. 165 , .

utional limitation (section 27, article 4), was passed: “First, to prevent what is called ‘log-rolUng legislation’ or ‘omnibus bills’; * * * second, to prevent surprise and fraud upon the people; * * and, in deciding whether an act is obnoxious to this provision of the constitution, a very good *173 test to apply is whether it is within the mischiefs intended to he remedied.” Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , .

No. 82, 40 Minn. 13 , ; Allen v. Pioneer Press Co., 40 Minn. 117 , ; Boyle v. Vanderhoof, 45 Minn. 31 , ; Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , ; State v. Chapel, 63 Minn. 535 , ; First Nat.

No. 82, Winona Co., 40 Minn. 13 , ; Allen v. Pioneer Press Co., 40 Minn. 117 , ; Boyle v. Vanderhoof, 45 Minn. 31 , ; Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , ; State y. Chapel, 63 Minn. 535 , ; First Nat.

Paul v. Colter, 12 Minn. 16 (41); Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , ; State v. Anderson, 63 Minn. 208 , ; Putnam v. City of St.

This claim we dispose of by calling attention to Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , ( ,) in which this feature of our fundamental law is very fully discussed, and to which nothing can be added in the way of argument.