McKerall v. Road & Highway Commission

'The opinion! of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Woods. This' proceeding for am injunction involves the constitutionality of a clause of the general tax act, 1912, purporting to provide for the disposition, of the convict labor of Marion county, to* relieve the supervisor of that counity of certain duties and powers1 ‘therein: ‘mentioned and to confer them on the 'board of highway commission of the county, and to abolish the office of supervisor on January 1, 1913. By an act approved February 26, 1910 (26 Stat. 945), provision was made for the issuance by the county of Marion of bonds for permanent road and highway improvement to the amount of $100,000. Five citizens were named in the act as constituting the hoard to 'be known as- the road and 'highway commission for Marion county, and upon 'this commission was placed the duty- of issuing the bonds and applying the proceeds to the building' and improvement of public roads of the county. .The statute did not abolish the office of supervisor, nor did it contain any express curtailment of bis powers except the following- clause: “That it shall be the duty of the county supervisor of said county to assist and co-operate with said commission in carrying on the work herein provided for, and to furnish for the use of said commission the chain gang and road machinery of said county whenever requested to do' so by said commission.” By a later act, 'approved' February 14, 1911 (27 Stat. 342 ), it wa's enacted: Section! 1. “Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South 'Carolina, That the supervisor of Marion *452 county be, anldi be is ■hereby, required upon the approval of this act by the Governor, to turn -over to the road and highway commission of Mari-on -county the chain gang and all other convicts hereafter sentenced to work on the public works of said county, together with all -other property belonging to said county, used by him in operating said chain gang, -which said highway commission may select, taking their receipt therefor, and when he ha© done so bis responsibility for the same shall cea'se. ■Sec. 2. “That the said supervisor shall also consult with said road and highway -commission before undertaking any road improvement, or bridge building-, or repairs, where the cost of the- same will exceed- the sum of -one hundred1 dollars. Sec. 3. “That the failure of said supervisor to- perform the duty herein required of him shall cause him to be liable as for malfeasance or misfeasance in -office.” This statute -changed the powers- anld duties of the supervisor -only to the extent that he was- relieved of all control of the chain gang and other convicts sentenced to- -work on the public works of the county. In all other respects the important duties and powers conferred on the -supervisor by section 755 of the Civil Code remained unimpaired. At the 1912 session of the General Assembly the act providing for the levy of taxes, for State and county purposes was passed under the title, “An act to provide for the levy of taxes for county and State purposes for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 1912.” The section of th-e a'ct relating to th-e tax levy for Marion county contained1 the following as a proviso : “Provided, That the road and highway commission for Marion county are hereby required to furnish to the municipal authorities of the town of Mari-on and the town of Mullins, such convicts to labor on the streets of said towns as will repay said towns one-half (j/2) of the time that said town authorities had given to the county during the year 1911; said convicts to be furnished thirty (30) days after *453 written notice requesting the same from the mayors or other officials of said towns. That the duties of the offices of county supervisor for Marion county, in so far as they relate to roads, bridges, and ferries in said county, are hereby transferred to and devolved upon the highway commission of said county, and said supervisor shall be under the direction and control of said commission, and perform such duties as shall be laid upon him and required of him by said commission, and upon his performing such duties, said commission shall pay his salary as now fixed by law until the 1st day of January next, when said office shall be abolished and become vacant, and all other duties of the office of county supervisor of Marion county, not laid upon the highway commission of said county, by the foregoing words, are hereby devolved upon the two county commissioners of said county.” The petitioner, as a citizen and taxpayer, alleges, that the highway commission: intend® to undertake the duties of the office of supervisor under the act, 'and' to furaish convicts to labor on the streets1, in ¡the town® of Marion and Mullins as provided by the act, that the. supervisor, D. J. Martin, is failing and refusing to work under tine direction and control of the road and highway commission. In this alleged) state of conflict as to the conduct of the public offices of the county, the petitioner asks the Court to enjoin the road and highway commission from attempting to carry out the provisions of the clause of the statute above cited, on the ground that it is in conflict with article III, section 17 of the Constitution, which requires that “every act or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject and that shall be expressed in the title.” This Court has given a very liberal interpretation to the section of the Constitution! just quoted, but to sustain the legislation here attempted would require complete disregard of the constitutional requirement. There is not the least hint in the title of the tax act of a purpose to dispose of the *454 convict labor of Marion county or to take away from the supervisor any of bis official powers; or to abolish his office. The oalse, therefore, falls within the evil against which the constitutional provision is directed. “The purpose of this and other similar constitutional provisions is said to be: ‘1st, to prevent hodge-podge or “logrolling” legislation; 2d, to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions; ini bills of which the titles give no intimation, and which might, therefore, be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and, 3d, to fairly apprise the people, through such publications of legislative proceedings as is usually made, of thie subjects of legislation that are being considered, in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon, by petition or otherwise, if they shall so. desire.’ ” Charleston v. Oliver, 16 S. C. 47; State v. Fields, 68 S. C. 148, 46 S. E. 771; Croxton v. Truesdel, 75 S. C. 418, 56 S. E. 45; State ex rel. Fooshe v. Burley, 80 S. C. 127, 61 S. E. 255. It is, therefore, adjudged that the portion of the act of 1912 above quoted, is unconstitutional, and that the road and highway commission for Marion county be enjoined from attempting to carry it into effect.