The Portland gazette. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1818-1824, 1822-12-10
GAOL YARD.

In our last, we endeavoured to show that the
courts Of sessions at the time OF separation, had
no authority 10 extend the limits of the g2ol
yard over private property. 1T appeared by our
review of the subject, that the sessions in this
county particularly had exceeded their powers
under the act Of '85; and that the legislature,
by two statutes passed in 1909, had confirmed
their doings, although they did not increase their
jurisdiction. Ii remains TO be seen, whether our
own legislature have given 10 these courts pow
er, which they did not before possess.
The general repeating act OF March DIST,
1927, swept from our code the statute OF '85, and
all the additional and amendatory acts touching
the subject. The blank in the statute book. oc-
casioned by the repeal, not being supplied by
the legislature, the law became what it was be-
fore the statute of'85 with all its ancient sever
ty. This state of things was not foreseen, at
least not provided against, BY the legislature;
and the confusion which resulted from ii COM
PEELED them, at their next meeting, hastily 10 re-
viye 9 all the laws relating to the establishment
of prison yards" which they had before repealed:
this was the frst act Of the session Of 18H2. In
February of the same year, was raised the act
for the relief Of Poor Debtors" the second sec
ton of which confirmed the boundaries of tLe
gaol yards as established prior to the passage Of
the repeating act, and the third gave the sessions
power to " fix and determine those boundaries
The question now is, whether the third section
of the Poor Debtor act gives the sessions more
enlarged jurisdiction over gaol yards, than they
possessed prior to the enactment of that statute
because if does not, their power is not increased;
as il is not pretended that any other statute gives
it to them. That part of the statute, TO which
we refer, runs thus: BE ii enacted &C that
the court Of sessions in the several counties in
this state be, and they are hereby authorized to
fix and determine the boundaries Of the raol
yards 70 the several gaols in their respective
counties and the same tochange and alter, from
time 10 time, as to them shall appear propern
Previous to the passing Of this act and subse-
quent to the decision in Taber's case, ii had Eot
been commended that the sessions could stretch
the limits Of the yard over any other than coun-
ty land. Does, then, the language of the section
we have quoted convey such power?
1t the Legislature had intended to invest the
sessions with new, important, and previously
htigated authority, they would not have done Il
by implication or in SO vague and loose a man
ner as to give rise to subsequent contention.
They would not-after the Supreme Court of
Massachusetts had said, {" if the legislature had
intended TO give power of this extent Ito in
cude within the yard private property to the
sessions, 1t IS manifest that the execution Of the
power would have been unconstitutionap'-thev
would not, after this, have granted the power,
without using plain and explicit language; they
would not nave left US to grope after their
meaning at the hazard Of loss, but would have
declared it expressly-Is this done? So far from
i, that the very language Of the statute Of 's5
$ used as far as is compatible with existing Cir
cuinstances The words Of that act are the
court OF the general sessions Of the peace shall
TX and determine the boundaries of the qaoT
yards 70 The several gaols dPpeytdining, il their
respective counties, as soon as MAJ be-" The
language Of the new statute differs from that If
ire old, only III the omission of the word amer
ea"lu'5, and III the restriction as TO time hf the
period when the statute Of '85 was passed Il was
necessary that the limits should be immediately
iiNed, IN order that all uncertainty uirLt ~ re-
moved as TO what were the true limits. and that
debtors should know the extent Of their PRIVILEGE
without delay. And it is evident that The word
GPpef7a1nifg could not, with proprietv. be in
, troduced into the new act, because the statutes
OF ioos bad adopted toe limits. which had been
mace improperly, hy the sessions, % include land
not " appurienant to the PRISONS"
Inc liberty given 70 the sessions by the new
statute TO change and alter from time to time,
as 70 mem shall appear proper" the several raoI
yards, is no new power :-thc- had i nn5ars M
old law, and it must be understood 10 he dis.
creton subject 70 existing laws: nor can tie
words, by any fair construction. be made " aive
% mat court an extended, important. and IN
constitutional jurisdiction. If therefore. there
was under the old law, restriction to rener.
a. . apparently unlimited power,and tie sessions
couia not then include private property within
NE limits q the yard, we do not perceive by
what sufficient title they claim 10 exercise Il
now. =
As we have adopted 50 much or tie statutes az