§ 81. Quarantine Regulation.-The state through its legislature, or the legislature through its Railroad Commission, or otherwise, may provide quarantine and other sanitary regulations preventing the bringing of infected stock within the state, such action being valid as a reasonable exercise of the police power of the state.142

to another, or to serve his patrons by transportation wholly within the limits of a single state. See Gulf C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Texas, 24 U. S. 403, 27 Sup. Ct. 360, 51 L. ed. 540. See as supporting these conclusions by parity of reasoning, American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 500, 24 Sup. Ct. 365, 48 L. ed. 538; General Oil Co. v. Crain, 209 U. S. 211, 28 Sup. Ct. 475, 52 L. ed. 754.

In this case the contention of the railroad company was that the goods included in the shipment partook of the character of interstate commerce, and should take the rate under the tariff L. 525, notwithstanding the transportation thereof was wholly within the state, for the reason that the goods were shipped into the state in original packages, and that they were shipped from the point of arrival within the state to another point within the state in the same original package. In other words, the contention of the railroad was that goods remain in law and character as interstate commerce while handled in the original package in which they entered the state; which contention would lead to the doctrine that "once interstate commerce in the original package, always interstate commerce," until the original package is broken, and Judge Wolverton said this idea is passed on in cases known as the Original Package Cases by the supreme court, the leading one being Leisg v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 10 Sup. Ct. 681, 34 L. ed. 128.

See, also, § 73, this chapter, and the authorities cited in footnote 128.

142 Patrick v. State, 17 Wyo. 260, 99 Pac. 588.

§ 82. The Long Title.-An act to provide for the organization of the railroad commission, to define its powers and duties and the rights, remedies, powers and duties of public utilities, their officers, define its powers and duties and the rights, remedies, of patrons of public utilities, and to provide penalties for offenses by public utilities, their officers, agents and employees and by other persons and corporations, creating the "Railroad Commission Fund" and appropriating the moneys therein to carry out the provisions of this act, and repealing the railroad commission act, approved February 10, 1911, and also repealing an act entitled "An act to amend the railroad commission act by amending section fifteen thereof relating to powers and duties of the railroad commission of the State of California, and to amend section thirty-seven thereof relating to free and reduced-rate transportation for freight and passengers," approved April 6, 1911, and all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act.1

1 Title of Act, c. 14, Extraordinary Session 1911, p. 18.

The title of this act is manifestly sufficient for all the purposes intended to be accomplished by the body of the act. The supreme court has recently passed upon the title to an act somewhat similar in the object to be accomplished, which was expressed by the title as follows: "An act to provide for the organization and government of irrigation districts, and to provide for the acquisition and construction thereby of works for the lands embraced within such districts, and, also, to provide for the distribution of water for irrigation purposes." In the body of the act, it was provided by sections 68-72 (post, c. 9, § 361 et seq.) for the institution and prosecution, by the district, of proceedings for determining the validity of assessments. The question was as to validity of the statute on account of these provisions for determination of validity of assessments, the claim being that such proceedings were so

§ 83. The Short Title.-The people of the state of California do enact as follows:

This act shall be known as the "Public Utilities Act" and shall apply to the public utilities and public

foreign to the title of the act as to render it void under the provisions of California Constitution, article IV, section 24. This contention the supreme court refused to uphold, saying: "It will be found repeatedly declared in our decisions, that the purpose of the constitutional provision is, not to destroy legislation germane to the general object declared in the title, but to protect against the passage of clauses and provisions foreign to the title, subject, and purpose of the act-deceptive legislation adroitly introduced and hidden in the body of the act." In re Bonds of So. San Joaquin Irr. Dist. (Cal.), 119 Pac. 198, citing People v. Linda Vista Irr. Dist., 128 Cal. 477, 61 Pac. 86; Law v. San Francisco, 144 Cal. 388, 77 Pac. 1014; People v. Sacramento Drainage Dist., 155 Cal. 373, 103 Pac. 207.

In the case of In re Bonds of the So. San Joaquin Irr. Dist. (Cal.), 119 Pac. 198, the supreme court further says: "The matter of the proceeding to test the legality of the assessments and of bond issues of the district under this broad and reasonable view comes clearly within the scope of the general purposes of the Irrigation Act"; citing Anderson v. Grand Valley Irr. Dist., 35 Colo. 525, 85 Pac. 313.

The provisions of section 24, article IV, of the constitution are mandatory. Ex parte Liddell, 93 Cal. 633, 29 Pac. 251.

As to acts held to be valid or invalid, on account of sufficiency or insufficiency of title, see Treadwell's Annotated Constitution, pp. 94-97. The purpose of section 24 is to protect members of the legislature as well as the public against fraud from deceitful and misleading titles to statutes. Ex parte Liddell, 93 Cal. 633, 29 Pac. 251; Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226, 24 Pac. 383.

The title to an act is not required to embrace an abstract or a catalogue of the contents of the act. Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226, 24 Pac. 383; Ex parte Liddell, 93 Cal. 633, 29 Pac. 251; People v. Superior Court, 100 Cal. 105, 34 Pac. 492; People v. Linda Vista Irr. Dist., 128 Cal. 477, 61 Pac. 86; Hellman v. Shoulters, 114 Cal. 136, 44 Pac. 915, 45 Pac. 1057.

The provisions of this section of the constitution are to be liberally construed and the legislature given much discretion. Ex parte Liddell, 93 Cal. 633, 29 Pac. 251; Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 266, 24 Pac. 383.

A single act cannot contain incongruous parts, or accomplish unconnected or dissimilar subjects to the object expressed in the title. People v. Parks, 58 Cal. 624.

One subject only is to be included in the title of an act; but numerous provisions having one general object, which object is fully indicated by the title of the act, may be united. Ex parte Liddell, 93 Cal. 633,

services herein described and to the commission herein referred to.'

29 Pac. 251; People v. Parks, 58 Cal. 624; Ex parte Kohler, 74 Cal. 38, 15 Pac. 436; De Witt v. San Francisco, 2 Cal. 289.

The title of an act cannot restrain or control any positive provisions of the act, and is to be resorted to as a means of ascertaining the intention of the legislature in those cases only in which the body of the act is doubtful. People v. Abbott, 16 Cal. 358; Bonds v. Jones, 51 Cal. 303; Matter of Boston Mining & M. Co., 51 Cal. 624; Harris v. Supervisors, 52 Cal. 553.

Where the title of an act is of such a character as to mislead the public or the members of the legislature in regard to the subjects embraced within it, the act will be void. Wood v. Election Commissioners, 58 Cal. 561.

2 Chapter 14, § 1, Extraordinary Session 1911, p. 18.

§ 84. "Commission."-The term "commission,” when used in this act, means the Railroad Commission of the state of California.1

§ 85. "Commissioner."-The term "commissioner," when used in this act, means one of the members of the Commission.2

1 Chapter 14, § 2 (a), Extraordinary Session 1911, p. 18.

2 Section 2 (b), p. 18.