3. STATUTES.

Scott v. Nashville Bridge Co.

Compensation Act does not contain two subjects in

referring to several systems of insurance.

Workmen's Compensation Act does not contravene Constitution, article 2, section 17, because the title and act each provides a system of workmen's compensation and also for a system of liability or accident insurance. (Post, pp. 104, 105.)

4. STATUTES. Compensation Act does not embrace more than one subject in providing exemption from claims of creditors. Workmen's Compensation Act does not embrace more than one subject, in violation of Constitution, article 2, section 17, in that. in addition to providing for payment of compensation to injured employees, it provides that the sums paid shall be exempt from the claims of the employee creditors. (Post, p. 105.)

5. STATUTES. Compensation Act does not deny employees right to contract and not express such subject in title.

The Workmen's Compensation Act is not invalid as denying an employee the right to contract and not expressing such subject in the title, as required by Constitution, article 2, section 17. (Post, p. 105.)

6. STATUTES.

Compensation Act does not contain two subjects in

providing revenue for state and compensation to employees, The Workmen's Compensation Act does not violate Constitution, article 2, section 17, providing that act should contain but one subject, in that it provides both revenue for State and compensation to employees, since the act would be a nullity if revenue could not be raised to carry out its provisions. (Post, p. 106.) 7. STATUTES. Constitutional provision as to embracing more than one subject in statute liberally construed. Constitution, article 2, section 17, providing that no bill shall become a law which embraces more than one subject, that subject to be expressed in the title, is to be construed liberally rather than to embarrass legislation by a construction whose strictness is unnecessary to the accomplishment of the beneficial purpose for which it has been adopted. (Post, p. 106.)

Scott v. Nashville Bridge Co.

Cases cited and approved: Cannon v. Mathes, 55 Tenn., 504, Heiskell v. Knoxville, 136 Tenn., 376; State v. Cumberland Club, 136 Tenn., 84.

8. STATUTES. Generality of title no objection.

Generality of the title of a statute is no objection, under Constitution, article 2, section 17, so long as it is not made a cover to legislation incongruous in itself, and which by no fair intendment can be considered as having a necessary or proper connection, and it is not essential to the constitutionality of a statute that its title should epitomize or recite in detail the provisions contained in its body; all provisions directly or indirectly relating to the subject expressed in the title, having a natural connection therewith and not foreign thereto, being held to be properly embraced in it. (Post, pp. 106, 107.)

Cases cited and approved: Cole Mfg. Co. v. Falls, 90 Tenn., 466; Ryan v. Terminal Co., 102 Tenn., 111; State v. Yardley, 95 Tenn., 546; State v. Cumberland Club, 136 Tenn., 84; State v. Schlitz Brewing Co., 104 Tenn., 715; Memphis v. St. Ry. Co., 110 Tenn., 598. 9. STATUTES. Workmen's Compensation Act does not repeal laws without reciting same in title.

Workmen's Compensation Act does not contravene Constitution, article 2, section 17 because, it repeals former laws without rectiing in its title or body the substance of the laws repealed; such constitutional provision referring alone to those acts which expressly repeal, revive, or amend former laws, and not embracing implied amendments or repeals. (Post, p. 107.)

Cases cited and approved: State v. Yardley, 95 Tenn., 558; Hunter v. Memphis, 93 Tenn., 571; Ballentine v. Mayor, 83 Tenn., 633; Home Insurance Co. v. Taxing Dist., 72 Tenn., 650; Poe v. State, 85 Tenn., 495; Railroad v. Crider, 91 Tenn., 507.

Constitution cited and construed: Art. 2, sec. 17.

10. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Statute to be held valid if it can be

sustained.

When the classification made and stated in a statute is challenged

as being arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory, under Con

Scott v. Nashville Bridge Co.

stitution, article 11, section 8, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, the existence of the state of facts at the time the law was enacted must be assumed, and any one who assails the classification contained in the statute has the burden of showing that it does not rest on any reasonable basis, but is essentially arbitrary. (Post, p. 108.)

Cases cited and approved: Motlow v. State 125 Tenn., 547; State v. Schlitz Brewing Co., 104 Tenn., 705; Ogilvie v. Hailey, 141 Tenn., 392.

11. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Statutes may extend to all citizent or be confined to particular classes.

Statutes public in their character and otherwise unobjectionable may extend to all citizens or be confined to particular classes, under Constitution, article 11, section 8. (Post, pp. 108-111.) Cases cited and approved: Breyer v. State, 102 Tenn., 103; Sutton v. State, 96 Tenn., 696.

Cases cited and distinguished: Ogilvie v. Hailey, 141 Tenn., 392; City of Memphis v. State, 133 Tenn., 84.

12. CCNSTITUTIONAL LAW., Workmen's Compensation Act not arbitrary and discriminatory in excluding coal mine operators. The Workmen's Compensation Act is not arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory, in violation of Constitution, article 11, section

8, in that it excludes from the operation of the statute coal mine operators and their employee and certain other employees. Post, pp. 111-114.)

Cases cited and approved: American Coal Co. v. Allegheny County, 128 Md., 564; Sayles v. Foley, 38 R. I., 488; Parker-Washington Co. v. Industrial Board, 274 Ill., 498.

Case cited and distinguished: Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co., 108 Tex., 96.

13. JURY. Workmen's Compensation Act not unconstitutional as denying trial by jury.

The Workmen's Compensation Act is not violative of Constitution, article 1, section 6, because it denies trial of jury, since parties

Scott v. Nashville Bridge Co.

by accepting the act waive the right to trial by jury, and hence are not deprived of that right; the statute being elective. (Post, pp. 113-115.)

Cases cited and approved: Trigally v. Memphis, 46 Tenn., 385; Marter v. Wear, 117 Tenn., 244; Woods v. State, 130 Tenn., 106; State ex rel. v. House, 134 Tenn., 67; Hawkins v. Beakley (D. C.), 220 Fed., 378; Deibeikis v. Link Belt Co., 261 Ill., 454; Hunter v. Colfax Consolidated Coal Co., 175 Iowa, 245; Greene v. Caldwell, 170 Ky., 571; Mathison v. Minn. St. Ry. Co., 126 Minn., 286; Sexton v. Newark Dist. Tel. Co., 84 N. J. Law, 85.

Constitution cited and construed: Art. 1, sec. 6.

Code cited and construed: Sec. 4613 (S.).

14. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Workmen's Compensation Act does not close courts and deny due process.

Workmen's Compensation Act does not close to employee the courts that were open prior, to its passage, and does not deny a remedy

by due process of law, in violation of Constitution article 1, section 17. (Post, pp. 115-117.)

15. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Provision that courts shall be open is mandate to judiciary and not Legislature.

Constitution, article 1, section 17, providing that all courts shall be open to every man, etc., who shall have a remedy by due prɔcess of law, is a mandate to the judiciary, and is not intended as a limitation on the legislative branch of the government. (Post, pp. 117, 118.)

Cases cited and approved: Bledsoe v. Wright, 61 Tenn., 471; Dodd v. Weaver, 34 Tenn., 672; Pawley v. McGimpsey, 15 Tenn., 502; Adams v. Iten Biscuit Co., 162 Pac., 938; Prescott v. Duncan, 148 S. W., 229; Harbison v. Knoxville Iron Company, 103 Tenn., 421. Case cited and distinguished: Nance v. Piano Co., 128 Tenn., 1.

16. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Workmen's Compensation Act no deprivation of liberty or property.

The Workmen's Compensation Act does not violate Constitution, Article 1, section 8, providing that no man shall be taken or dis

Scott v. Nashville B.idge Co.

seized of his freehold, etc., or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land. (Post, pp. 117, 118.)

17. EMINENT DOMAIN. Workmen's Compensation Act not taking of property without compensation.

Workmen's Compensation Act does not violate Constitution, article 1, section 21, providing that no man's particular services shall be taken or property taken or applied to public use without just compensation. (Post, pp. 118-120.)

Cases cited and approved: Nance v. Piano Co., 128 Tenn., 1; Harbison v. Knoxville Iron Co., 103 Tenn., 421; Munn v. Ill., 94 U. S., 113.

Case cited and distinguished: N. Y. Central R. R. Co. v. White, 243 U, S., 188.

Constitution cited and construed: Art. 1, sec. 21.

18. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Workmen's Compensation Act does not deprive employee of property without due process under federal Constitution.

Workmen's Compensation Act does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution on the ground that it deprives an employee of his property without due process of law. (Post, p. 120.)

Case cited and approved: Arizona Copper Co. v. Hammar, 250 U. S., 400.

19. MASTER AND SERVANT. Compensation Act not unconstitutional as binding minor employee.

Workmen's Compensation Act is not unconstitutional, in that it undertakes to make an election for and a binding contract upon a minor employee, when by reason of such minority he is unable to make such election or contract, since the act endows a minor, for the purpose of the act, with a power to elect. (Post, p. 120.) 20. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. One not prejudiced cannot claim unconstitutionality of statute.

An adult employee is not in a position to challenge the Workmen's Compensation Act on the ground that it undertakes to make an election for a minor employee, if it does so. (Post, p. 120.)