The opinion
*382 BRETT, Judge
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent to this decision. I do not agree that Title 10 O.S.Supp. 1970, § 1101 A, must be declared unconstitutional especially for the reasons stated. It is not intended that Article 5, Section 57, of the Oklahoma Constitution he construed in the restrictive manner indicated in this decision. This section relating to a statute’s containing more than one subject should not be technically, strictly, or narrowly, but reasonably, fairly, broadly, and liberally construed, with due regard to its purpose. Bond v. Phelps, 200 Okl. 70 , 191 P.2d 938 (1934). This Court provided in In re Powell, 6 Okl.Cr. 495 , 120 P. 1022 (1912), “When there are numerous provisions having one general object, the title is sufficient if it fairly indicates the general purpose of the act. . . . ” (Emphasis added.) Purpose of provision of this section that every act of Legislature shall embrace but one subject is to forbid Legislature from embracing in any one act two or more unconnected subjects. Chastain v. Oklahoma City, 208 Okl. 604 , 258 P.2d 635 . House Bill No. 1292, Chap. 226, p. 370, 1970 Session Laws, does not embrace two or more unconnected subjects. The object with which the bill concerned itself is “children”; the subject considered therein is the “rights of children.” Therefore, I do not consider that the Legislation is unconstitutional.
Further, the Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit decision in Lamb v. Brown, 456 F.2d 18 (1971), did not hold the entire act to be unconstitutional. Instead that decision recites: “ . . . we hold that 10 Okl.St. Ann. § 1101(a) is violative of the equal protection clause.” Consequently, I believe this Court should hold that males under eighteen years of age who are charged with the commission of a crime are — like females — juveniles; and before they can be tried as adults they must first be certified to stand trial as adults by the juvenile court.
I therefore dissent.