obstacles may not be thrown in the way of considering other distinct legislative proposals upon their merits? The legitimate fruits of this decision appear to us to be omnibus and log-rolling legislation without end.
A word as to the authorities cited in the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Grace. An examination of them will, we are confident, disclose that they have no application to the case in hand. The principle applied in the cases cited, is familiar and sound. As we understand it, it is this: That where the title of an amendatory act does not indicate the subject of the amendment further than by reference to the act amended and to declare the purpose to amend, the title is sufficient, provided the subject matter of the amendment is properly one to be embraced under the title of the act amended. Thus, in amending a section of the prohibition law defining intoxicating liquors, it was held proper to make any definition that would have been appropriate under the original measure under going amendment and that it was not necessary to state in the title of the amendatory act the exact character of the amendment. State v. Fargo Bottling Works, 19 N. D. 396. See, also, Erickson, et al. v. Cass Co. et al. 11 N. D. 494. In the opinion of the majority, this principle does not aid a duplicitous title nor render valid legislation which results from a clear change of purpose from that originally evidenced by the bill. It does not sustain legislation that goes beyond the title of the amendatory act considered in its relation to the parts amended. Dolese et al. v. Pierce 124 Ill. 140. It only supplies a defect in a title which is apparent rather than real, and this it does by referring to the title of the act amended. The question before us is not one of the sufficiency of the title at all, but of duplicity of subject matter and change of purpose. If a bill be introduced for the purpose of amending a given section of some pre- existing chapter and if it emerges from the legislature as a bill to amend an entirely different section of the same chapter and one having no logical connection with the first proposal, the purpose is clearly changed notwithstanding the two sections were originally parts of the same act. And if a bill be introduced relating to subjects so clearly distinct as the compensation of assessors and the rate of interest payable on tax certificates, the subject is none the less duplicitous because they have in the past been dealt with in a single act under an appropriate title prescribing a revenue and taxation code.
Upon other occasions the minority members, and particularly Mr. Jus-
