REPORT. Mr. Poujade, by leave, offered the following report of Special Committee (out of order): To the Senate and Assembly, of the Fourteenth Session of the Legislature, of the State of Nevada: We, your Joint Committee, appointed to visit and confer with the Legislature of the State of California, in reference to immediate legislation to prevent the pollution of the waters of the Truckee river, and also with reference to the boundary line between California and Nevada, most respectfully report that we visited Sacramento on January 21, 1889, and conferred with R. W. Waterman, Governor of California, and with a Joint Committee appointed for that purpose by the Legislature of California, now in session, consisting of Hon. S. M. White, President of the Senate, Hon R. J. Moffit, Hon. Frank McGowan, Hon. W. E. Dargie, Hon. A. F. Jones, Hon. Robert Howe, Speaker of the Assembly, Hon. M. H. Brickwedel, Hon. C. Williams, Hon. J. A. Hall, Hon. L. J. Frank and Hon. Archibald Yell. That we received at their hands the utmost courtesy and fair consideration; that we arrived at a perfect understanding concerning the legislation necessary to preserve, in their purity, the waters of the Truckee river, and other streams crossing the State line; and to carry out such understanding, we recommend the passage of Senate Bill No. 14, entitled "An Act to prevent the pollution of the waters of the lakes, rivers and running streams of this State by sawdust, which has passed the Senate, and is now pending in the Assembly, to be enforced when it becomes a law, in connection with such similar Act as may be passed by the Legislature of California. With regard to the moving of the boundary line, between the two States, westward to the summit of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, we were accorded a fair and considerate hearing by Governor Waterman and by the Committee above-mentioned, and other members of the Legislature of California, with the. answer, upon their part, that it was a question new to them-and one which they had not considered a question of great importance, and upon which, in view of the prevailing sentiment in California-they were, at present, not ready to act. The hospitality shown to your Committee by Governor Waterman and members of the Legislature of the State of California, was indicative of a friendly feeling which exists between the people of California and Nevada-and which, it is hoped, will always continue between those two sister States. E. WILLIAMS, Chairman of Committee. W. E. SHARON, R. S. OSBURN, M. D. FOLEY, A. E. CHENEY, L. A. BLAKESLEE, A. GARRARD, WILLIAM THOMPSON, J. POUJADE, TRENMOR COFFIN, Committee. Report of Special Committee on Titles of Bills. Mr. Speaker: Your Special Committee on Titles of Bills beg leave to report that after a somewhat extended inquiry and examination of the question, they are of the opinion that the title to a bill amending a Statute should refer to and correctly quote the title to the Act to be amended, and where the original Statute has already been amended and it is desirous to again amend the section the bill should intelligibly refer to the last amendatory Statute. Either of three ways may be followed with comparative safety, viz: By amending the last amendatory Statute, correctly quoting the title, or by quoting the title to the original Act with date of approval followed by the phrase "As amended by Act approved (giving date of amendatory Act), and as further amended by Act approved," etc., or as amended by Act approved (giving date of last amendatory Act). Where the original Act contains several sections, and it is proposed to amend one or more sections, it is better that the title of the bill should state that it is an Act to amend the sections by giving the number of the sections to be amended in the title of the bill; where there is existing legislation upon a particular matter which it is proposed to change, the title should be an Act to amend, etc. While it may, in most instances, be more convenient to style a bill as supplemental to some existing law, the practice is not commendable, and is often dangerous. It seems to be finally settled by the Courts that an amendatory law must refer to the last enactment of the Statute sought to be amended, and if it fails to do this it does not comply with the Constitutional requirement, and would for that reason be inoperative. Take as a supposed case, that Section 20 of the Crimes Act, passed in 1861, had been amended in 1871, and also in 1881, and it was desirous of again amending it, we believe a safe title would be: Au Act to amend Section twenty of an Act entitled "An Act concerning crimes and punishments," approved November 26, 1861, as amended by an Act approved February 1, 1871, and as further amended by an Act approved March 4, 1881. The first Section of the bill should read: SECTION 1. Section twenty of the above entitled Act as amended is hereby amended.so as to read as follows: Section twenty. "The filing, etc.," (here set out the Section in full.) TRENMOR COFFIN, For Committee. |