172 Tenn. at 517, 114 S.W.2d at 445. In Armistead et al. v. Karsch et al., 192 Tenn. 137, 237 S.W.2d 960 (1951), this Court said: When the Legislature is presented with a caption which says that it is to amend another Act of the Legislature, of course, the Legislature and those interested have notice of what this other Act is because it is in force and spread on the books, but when this amendatory Act goes further and says that the amendment is only to cover certain specified things this is telling the Legislature that now the sign is pointing out to you a certain specific place or direction and that only such specific things will be done by this amendment.

The view has been followed. See, e.g., Armistead v. Karsch, 192 Tenn. 137, 143, 237 S.W.2d 960, 962 (1951)(finding unconstitutional an act which in its body provided benefits to widows of all city employees and to children and mothers under certain circumstances when the restrictive provision of the caption stated that the Act was "to provide certain benefits for widows of pensioned employees"). When a law is enacted to amend a previous enactment of the legislature, it is generally deemed consistent with Article II, § 17 if the caption recites the title or section of the law to be amended.

In the absence of such a clause the unconstitutional death penalty provision may not be elided from the Act. The doctrine of elision is not favored in the law, Armistead v. Karsch, 192 Tenn. 137, 237 S.W.2d 960 (1951). There is also a presumption arising from the absence of a severability clause that the Legislature would not have passed the enactment without the objectionable matter.

This test has been paraphrased in other cases as follows: "So long as the subject matter of the act is germane to that expressed in the title, it is free from the objection that the body of the act is broader than its caption." Southern Photo Blue Print Co. v. Gore, 173 Tenn. 69, 74, 114 S.W.2d 796, 798 (1938) (emphasis supplied); accord, Dorrier v. Dark, supra; Cosmopolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Northington, 201 Tenn. 541, 300 S.W.2d 911 (1957); Witt v. McCanless, 200 Tenn. 360, 292 S.W.2d 392 (1956); Armistead v. Karsch, 192 Tenn. 137, 237 S.W.2d 960 (1951); Louisville Nashville R. Co. v. Hammer, 191 Tenn. 700, 236 S.W.2d 971 (1951); Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. Mayor Aldermen of Town of Fayetteville, 173 Tenn. 111, 114 S.W.2d 811 (1938); Armstrong v. City of South Fulton, 169 Tenn. 54, 82 S.W.2d 862 (1935); see also Sutherland, supra § 17.03 ("reasonably germane" test adopted in other jurisdictions with similar constitutional provisions). As a corollary to the above test, it also has been recognized that the "subject" of an act, which must be expressed in the caption pursuant to article II, § 17, does not embrace the means or instrumentalities for accomplishing the purpose of the act.

However, we think the doctrine of elision can be applied in this instance to strike only the phrase quoted above in order to preserve the continuity of the statute and spare it from constitutional infirmity. See Armistead v. Karsch, 192 Tenn. 137, 237 S.W.2d 960 (1951). Both parties agree in their briefs to the elision.

Basically, the purpose of this constitutional provision was to prohibit so-called "omnibus bills" and bills containing hidden provisions of which legislators and other interested persons might not have appropriate or fair notice. See Armistead v. Karsch, 192 Tenn. 137, 237 S.W.2d 960 (1951); Haynes v. Sanford, 185 Tenn. 576, 206 S.W.2d 796 (1947); Palmer v. Southern Express Company, 129 Tenn. 116, 165 S.W. 236 (1914); State v. Hayes, 116 Tenn. 40, 93 S.W. 98 (1905). In the case relied upon by the Chancellor, Bell v. Pulaski, 179 Tenn. 542, 167 S.W.2d 985 (1943), the caption of a Private Act stated that the purpose of the Act was to repeal a number of previous acts dealing with the charter of the City of Pulaski. The text of the Act went further than a repeal, however, and undertook to set forth and define new corporate limits of the city.

On the other hand, we consider the following cases authority for holding that when a title particularizes the changes which are to be made in an amendatory act, the legislation is limited to matters specified, and anything beyond this limitation would be void regardless of how germane it might be to the subject of the original act: Hammond v. Bingham, supra, at 362 P.2d 1082; County of Hillsborough v. Price, Fla.App., 149 So.2d 912, 915; Thompson v. Commercial Credit Equipment Corporation, supra, at 99 N.W.2d 769; Armistead v. Karsch, 192 Tenn. 137, 237 S.W.2d 960, 962; Praetorians v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 184 S.W.2d 299, 300, affirmed 143 Tex. 565, 186 S.W.2d 973, 158 A.L.R. 596; State ex rel. Morford v. Emerson, 1 Terry 233, 40 Del. 233, 8 A.2d 154, 158-160; Hays v. Federal Chemical Co., 151 Tenn. 169, 268 S.W. 883, 884; People ex rel. Corscadden v. Howe, 88 App. Div. 617, 84 N YS. 604, affirmed 177 N.Y. 499, 69 N.E. 1114, 1116, 66 L.R.A. 664; State v. Schultz Gas-Fixture Art-Metal Co., 83 Md. 58, 34 A. 243, 244; Davey v. Ruffell, 162 Pa. 443, 29 A. 894, 896; Niles v. Schoolcraft Circuit Judge, 102 Mich. 328, 60 N.W. 771, 773; Johnson v. Jones, 87 Ga. 85, 13 S.E. 261, 262. See also Jacobs v. Klawans, 225 Md. 147, 169 A.2d 677, 680; and Troutman v. Crippen, 186 Tenn. 459, 212 S.W.2d 33, 35.