concurring in part, dissenting in part:
With certain exceptions, I concur with the majority opinion of this Court that the reduced budget bill, commonly called the “bare bones budget bill”, with the subsequent passage by the legislature of eighty-six supplementary appropriation bills, was constitutionally adopted, in accordance with the provisions of Article VI, § 51 of the Constitution, which contains the Modern Budget Amendment.
However, I do not agree with syllabus point 5 of the majority opinion. The title to each of the supplementary appropriation bills must comply with Article VI, § 30 of the Constitution of West Virginia, and each supplemental act must embrace only one object and that object must be expressed in the title. Article VI, § 30, Constitution of West Virginia. The fact that the title contained the language “AN ACT making a supplementary appropriation of public money out of the treasury * * although sufficient to indicate that it is a supplementary appropriation bill under Article VI, § 51, does not comply with Article VI, § 30 of the Constitution. However, the title to each supplementary appropriation bill did embrace one object, although the majority opinion does not so indicate. Although I am of the opinion the title to each supplementary appropriation act complies with the requirements of Article VI, § 30 of the Constitution, I do not think the language of syllabus point 5, and the language pertaining thereto in the opinion, is correctly stated with regard to this question.
I dissent from the majority opinion with regard to supplementary appropriation bills numbered S.B. 563, S. B. 576, S.B. 577,: S.B. 579, S.B.' 580, S.B'. 581, .S.B. ¿82, S.B. 583, S.B. 584; S.B. 58'9, S.B.'591, S.B.'601, H.B. 1420, H.B. 1428, H.B. 1433 and H.B. 1435 for the reason that it appears the legislature, in effect, amended the gover*958nor’s budget bill by the passage of supplementary appropriation bills which in these instances permitted the legislature to do indirectly what this Court prohibited specifically in the case of State ex rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship, W. Va., 214 S.E.2d 467. For example, the legislature could have increased Item 1 in the governor’s budget bill for Account 830, Department of Natural Resources, in the amount of $40,000 and met the constitutional requirements of subsection B-5, which gives the legislature the right to amend the budget bill by increasing or decreasing any item therein, but the legislature does not have the authority to amend the governor’s budget bill in the manner done in S.B. 589 which, in effect, added an additional line item to the governor’s budget bill for Account No. 830.
For the reasons stated herein, I would have granted a molded writ limited only to the supplementary appropriation bills referred to above, and hold all other supplementary appropriation bills of the legislature and Committee Substitute S.B. 23 constitutional.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Haden joins in this dissent.