
    The People ex rel. Charles W. Little et al., Respondents v. Abraham O. Willsea, Supervisor, etc., Appellant.
    (Argued April 12, 1875;
    decided April 27, 1875.)
    The act entitled “An act to amend an act entitled ‘An act to provide for the drainage of swamp, bog and other low and wet lands in the village of White Plains and adjacent thereto’” (chap. 639, Laws of 1872) is not repugnant to the constitutional provision (State Const., art. 3, § 16), that no local bill shall embrace more than one subject and that shall be expressed in its title ; it simply extends the provisions of the original act so as to conform the description of the lands to be drained to the precise description contained in the title, by including land in the town of Gr., adjacent to White Plains, not mentioned in the original enactment.
    Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, affirming an order of Special Term which granted a writ of peremptory mandamus directed to the defendant as supervisor of the town of Greenburgh, Westchester county, commanding him to deliver to the relators bonds of the said town as required by chapter 884, Laws of 1871, as amended by chapter 639, Laws of 1872.
    The papers showed that the petitioners were the commissioners appointed under said acts for the purposes thereof; that they determined it to be necessary that the lands described should be drained, and duly determined how much of the expense should be paid by the towns in which the lands were situated; that they determined that the sum of §9,099.20 should be paid by and assessed to the town of Greenburgh; that the assessments were made and the said commissioners made demand upon defendant to issue the bonds of - his town for the amount assessed as provided for by the said acts, who refused to issue the same.
    Further facts appear in the opinion.
    
      Calvin Frost for the appellant.
    The provisions of the act of 1872 (chap. 639), are repugnant to article 8, section 16 of the State Constitution. (In re Mayer, 50 N. Y., 504; id., 558, 559; People v. Suprs. Chautauqua, 43 id., 10; People v. Hills, 35 id., 449 ; People v. Comrs. Palatine, 53 Barb., 70.)
    
      J. O. Dykman for the respondents.
    The degree of particularity with which the title of an act is to express its subject, rests in the discretion of the legislature. (Brewster v. City of Syracuse, 19 N. Y., 16; People v. Briggs, 50 id., 553; People v. Comrs. of Taxes, id., 501; Sun Ins. Co. v. N. Y., 4 Seld., 241.) Taxation may be apportioned without reference to locality, or to any proportion between the burden and benefit. (Howell v. City of Buffalo, 37 N. Y., 267.) The power of the legislature, in respect to taxation, is absolute and unlimited bir any constitutional provision. (People v. Mayor of Bklyn., 4 Comst., 219 ; Town of Guilford v. Suprs. Chenango, 3 Kern., 143 ; Brewster v. City of Syracuse, 19 N. Y., 118; Howell v. City of Buffalo, 37 id., 267; People v. Lawrence, 36 Barb., 194.) The title of the act proposed to be amended was inserted, and that made it free from objection. (People v. Briggs, 50 N. Y., 591.)
   Andrews, J.

The original "drainage act (Laws of 1871, chap. 884) entitled “ An act to provide for the drainage of the swamp, bog, and other low and wet lands, in the village of White Plains, and adjacent thereto,” provided that proceedings might be taken as prescribed in the body of the act, for the drainage of lands in the “village or town of White Plains,” and for charging the expense upon the property benefited, and (conditionally) upon the village and town of White Plains. The act did not extend to lands lying in the town of Greenburgh, and it is not claimed that, under it, that town, or lands therein, could be charged with any part of •the cost of the improvement. But the town of Greenburgh adjoined on one side the village of White Plains, and a tract of low and wet land lay partly within the village and town of White Plains, and partly within the town of Greenburgh.

In 1872 the original act was amended by an act entitled “An act to amend an act entitled ‘An act to provide for the drainage of the swamp, bog, and other low and wet lands, in the village of White Plains, and adjacent thereto,’ passed May 2, 1871,” by authorizing the proceedings for drainage to be taken in respect to lands “in said village (White Plains), or adjacent thereto” (following the language of the title of the original act), and charging the expense on the owners of lands benefited, and on the towns in which the land to be drained is situated.

It is claimed that this act is unconstitutional, as being in violation of article 3, section 16, of the Constitution, and this is the only question before us on this appeal. We see no ground for this objection. The subject of both acts is the drainage of lands. The title of the original act was broader than the enactment. It included th"e low and wet lands in the village and town of White Plains mentioned in the body of the act, and also lands adjacent, and if the wet lands in the town of Greenburgh had been mentioned in the enacting clause, the title would have comprehended those also. The amendment consisted in conforming the description of the lands to be drained to the precise description contained in the title, and in extending the area of the assessment and apportioning the expenses in view of the greater territorial extent of the operations authorized by the amended act.

The title of the original act is recited in the title of the amended act, and as the provisions of the amended act relate to but one subject, and that is expressed in the title to the original act, the objection fails.

The order should be affirmed.

All concur.

Order affirmed.  