The penny press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1859-1860, 1859-11-01
LAW REPORT.
HAMILTON CouNTY DISTRICT COURT.

SObNih OUUhIs
~, Ihe Chief of Police vs.. the City Marshal.
npoI the demurrer raised In the case Of
1ne state OF Ohio on the relation of b. Robinson vs.
Jul o. uano pToceeded yesterday,betore this Court
anu rterposod BY the council for the respond
Gn .ne case should DO reserved for the Supreme
~ On account Of the necessary connection which
tbs Mamed 70 exist between Mr. Ganos claim to
nsw al asiship and Mr Bobinsons induction to the
,u Uuue Matthews opened the argument on the de-
strmI T. II involved two questions the con-
NY Because, supposing the law to be valid, II may
ssib BY the claim Of the parties on the opposite
a thsfs yad
of Marshal continues to exist and the ncumbe be
entitled e,iI to discharge the duties. He (Jpdge NJ
the act had It had at least the effect of abOlishing
M ~, Cmee q Marshal II had been claimed by Mr.
hn that the Chief Of Police who to become
tne substitute OF City Marshal, was the particular
hief OF Police to be thereafter appointed under this
iaW' anu that inasmqch as it does not appear that
made their appointments that the fact on which the
ONCE OF City Marshal to terminate has not trans
fired, and the old law continues in operation. But
lne law actually makes provision for that very case
lapse of time between tho pc rOd when the act
taxes effect and the time when the Com missoners
snail commence action.
There was necessary lapse before the machinery
could Do completed.and what is the situation of the
oHe Sect department In the meantime The seventh
pointed Chief Of Police &c, the appointments shall
ne Te ade under the act which this pplementary
layt thaI tnere was in existence under the old
Jaw ghef OF Police-and now the head of that whole
organization being cut off by law, anu his duties
transferred to the Chief of Police BY name, that OH
Ger nov holding such appointment continues to act
untli tnls Board OF Commissioners shall mako their
appointments.
The only other question presented by the demurrer
way wnetner this law has any validity. 1t passed
DON branches of the Legislature; and fit were not
vald II must be from lack of power on the part of
voiS yoe Assembly to pass such statue Was it
v9la IN consequence of violation of the provision
which requires the Legislature In passing an amend
aSory act 70 recite the entire act amended That
clause OF tie Constitution Is directory only But in
Iact ~ was not amendatory, but supplementary
providing that certain cities, goyerened by pc.
of bns Ss shall be Withdrawn from the operation
~ tnose laws, ana be placed under system leaving
ahe GIu law untouched as to still remaining
WITHIN Its embrace.
VISION OF the Constitution by exercising an appoint.
ing over. This question had been subjected to a
% tructon by the Supreme Court He claimed that
@ e resignation OF certain officers, already in exist
ei M e TO superintend certain departments of the city
20 overnment was not the exercise of an appointing
over II was also urged by counsel that even sup,
would not necessarily inyalidate the whole statute.
Mr. Mitchell prefaced his remarks by alluding to
said presented good an srgume mt as could be made
upon 1t, and which he would therefore adopt and
hand up to the Court as brief. The question as to
stress ppon-it was not the principle on which he
rested his case, The law in question incidentally
duties to the Chief of Police aud the question that
comes up is whether tho Legislature could be sup
posed to abolish that Office without the provision
which he claimed to be unconstitutonal-and except
with reference to new appointment of Chief of
Police different from that ich had previously ex-
listed. In pressing the consideration that the law
was anendatory, counsel took the ground that while
the old law provided in particular manner for the
organizatio and government Of cities of the first
class, the new law virtually limits that provision to
cities OF the irst class having population less than
so,OOO.and limiting the operation of the old law to
portion only Of the cities of the first class.
Mr.. Groesbeck closed the argument on the side Of
the relator, and contended that this was not an
amendment in theaense of the constitutional proyi-
SION, which contemplated q change of phraseology
which made necessary to bring the old section for
ward. But where the section was not modified, il
was not an amendment. Besides, the provision was
directory and not compulsory the Legislatures and
the Courts were not directed to pulfy the legislation
Of the State because there may have been some in
tormality in them This view of the matter was
taken by the Supreme Court, The nformalty would
amount to nothing after the Legislature finally acted
and put its seal to its transactions.
MT Groesbock was prepared to 60 into the argu-
ment OF other questions which 1t was anticipated
would have been raised; but the opposite counsel
having limited the line of argument by pressing
mainly single point 1t was not thought necessary
to discuss them.
The question is now under advisement by the
Court. " '''