Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-08-31
u udge Green's Decfsion-Ils Ma.
ture and Effect. .

The. decision of Judge GREEN, in the
sScioto Bridge" case, being the subject OF
much comment and some misrepresentation
we have requested and obtained his per-
mission to extract from it so much as dis
cusses the provisions of the several statutes
involved in the question, and the construc-
tion they should receive. We publish
below that portion of the opinion, some-
what condensed, from which it will be
seen that his ruling does not involve the
consequences that have been suggested,
and that it is sustained by course of rea-
soning that it will be difficult to refute.
Alter quoting at some length from ele-
mentary books and reported cases, the rules
and maxims for the construction ofstatutes,
the opinion proceeds to say From these
rules and maxims, we deduce the duty of
the Judge. He is to ascertain, by applying
settled principles, the intention of the Leg
islature, when that intention is rendered
doubtful by reason of ambiguity or uncer-
tainty in the language of the statute. The
intention is, primarily, to be sought for in
the ,oords of the statute. 1t is only when
the words are not explicit that the inten-
tion Is to be arrived at from the occasion
and necessity for the law, or by resort to
exrraneous matters. Though the intention
is the great object of the rules and max
inns of Interpretation, yet, in order to give
effect to what he may conjecture to have
been the purpose of the Legislature, the
Judge must not put upon the provisions of
a statute construction not warranted or
supported by the words, though the conse-
quences should be to defeat the law. When
the sense of q statute Is evident, and ex-
pressed in clear and precise terms, not
tending to conclusions, which are absurd,
and at war with the manifest intention,
there is no room for construction. In such
q case, to go of on conjecture, and travel
In quest of extraneous matters in order to
restrict or enlarge the operation of the
words, would be dangerous and gross
perversion of the law itself.
"We find it. then, declared in the act OF
May 8, 1858, 20. L. vol. So, p. 176,) THAT
the county commissioners shall not, hereaf-
ter, make any purchase or enter into any
contract or engagement for the erection of
any infirmary, court house, jail, bridge,
culvert, or other public building or i'm
provement, by which larger amount of
money or rexpense is involved than $4,000,
without first submitting the question, as to
the policy of such outlay or expense in
volved therein, to the qualified voters of
the county, either at the annual spring
or fall elections etc.
mo language could be more clear, ex-
plieit, comprehensive and imperative than
this. There would, therefore, seem to be
no room for construction.
"But I am required to consider this law,
in connection with the special act Of
March 13. 1858, 20. L. vol. 65, p. 221) in re-
1ition to the bridge in question; and to
Determine whether anything is to be found
in that act which will authorize conclu-
sion that it was the intention of the Leg
islature that the restriction upon the pow
.er OF the County Commissioners, imposed
by the general law of May 9, should not
apply to the special act of March 13.
"That act (sec. y provides that the Com
missioners of Franklin county be and they
are hereby authorized to levy tax not
exceeding one mill on the dollar on the to-
tai valuation of the taxable property of
said county for the year 1868, for the pur-
pose of constructing bridge across the
Scioto river; said bridge shall be erected
across said river at such point as the Com
missioners may designate, between the Ma
tional road bridge at Broad street. and the
bridge over said river on the Columbus
and Harrisburg turnpike.
'Section empowers the Commissioners
to borrow money, not exceeding one-half
the amount collected from the tax, for a
period of one year at a rate of interest not
exceeding six per cent. per annum; and
declares that the money so borrowed shall
be applied to the construction of said
bridge. :.
"When two statutes, in parinsateria, are to
be considered, if the provisions of the one
are repugnant to those of the other, so that
both cannot stand together, the later act
must prevail. But if by any fair construc-
ton the repugnancy may be reconciled So
that both can be executed, both shall
stand, and 10 determining the question we
may seek for the purpose of the law-maker
in the reason and spirit of both laws, and
the mischief that required remedy, SUBJ
iect, however, to those cannons of con-
struction which have been already con-
sidered.
"The purpose OF this special act of March
Ii is obvious. 1t was to confer
upon them power, which they had
not under the general law, and which
they could not exercise, unless by further
legislative grant, 1st-To levy a greater
rate of taxation than is authorized by the
general law. 2d-To authorize them to
borrow money.
e There is then clearly no repugnancy in
the two statutes. The special act simply
confers power indispensable to the attain
ment of the particular purpose-the build
ing of a bridge the cost of which will ex-
ceed $4,000. This power may be exer-
cised in entire and perfect harmony with
the restriction imposed by the act of May
9, which requires the question of the policy
of the expenditure to be submitted to the
people.
'What was the mischief intended to be
remedied by the general law last named?
We have seen that as far back as 1856 the
Legislature has considered it expedient and
proper to impose restriction on the pow
er of County Commissioners in the expend-
iture of the public money-fxing the limit
in 1856 at 5000, in 1866 at $4,000, and
finally, in 1865, at $4,000. If the policy OF
this restriction is wise and salutary, it is so
in Franklin county as in any other. The
case is clearly within the mischief to be
remedied, and am not aware of any suffi-
cient reason for making it an exception.