Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-08-31

i1ans SVure houses, Dr10geS, &c, Wnere, L
acting upon that construction. the Com
missioners of the respective counties have |
proceeded without obtaining the sanction
OF the popular vote; and further, that the
provisions of the special act in question
show that it could not have been intended
that the question should be submitted to the
people. , sEftj n
"Undoubtedly where construction of
law has long been received and acted upon,
it is entitled to much consideration, even
though erroneous, for common error 1t is
said sometimes makes common law.
"But have examined many of the in
stances IN which 1t is claimed that this con-
struction has been acted upon, under spe-
cial acts-and find that those acts contain
language that may well admitof such con-
struction. Among the local laws of 1867
will be found special acts authorizing the
commissioners of Fairfield, Mercer. Stark
and Delaware counties to build court
houses in their respective counties. The
language of those acts is, The commits
sioners are hereby authorized to con-
str1ct' or TO build "a court house, The
same authority to build or to construct is
given to the commissioners in an act in re-
lation to an infrmary in Greene county
in relation to bridge in Ross county-in
relation to a Jail in Montgomery county.
Turning to the local acts of 1868, find the
same authority to build or to erect
given to the commissioners in the several
acts in relation to court house in Monroe
county, to bridges in Muskingum county,
to bridge in Montgomery county. to- a
court house in Greene county, to court
house in Darke county. In all of these
cases the expenditure will exceed $4,000,
and in all of them we find express author
ity conferred to do the thing proposed, and
as consequence to dispense with
a submission to a popular vote. For
the purpose of ascertaining how far this
legislation has been consistent, have ex-
amined the local laws since and including
the year 1860, and find that with, 1
think, but four or five exceptions in all the
special acts in relation to the public build
ings and improvements, referred to in the
! general law imposing this restriction on the
power of the Commissioners, the language is
uniformly authorized to build to erect
or to construct Thus by special laws
multiplying this provision of the general
law. But by the Scioto bridge act we are
considering, the Commissioners are au-
| thorized not to build. to erect or to construct
bridge, but to levy tax for the purpose
of constructing bridge.
II do not undertake to say that the Ian
ua1 hxrf fha
of Ohio, in. the laws it enacts, furnishes at
all times a certain or safe guide to the in
tention; but it is very clear, as shown by
these numerous special acts, that if we re-
sort to language, to aid US in this case, there
is uniformity in the words employed,
that leaves us no alternative. When we
find in this body of legislation provision
clearly indicating an intention to confer
authority on County Commissioners to pro-
ceed without consulting any other source
of power, and in particular case, as in the
| special act for this bridge, an omission to
use the language or its equivalent, from
which such intention in the other cases is
derived, the conclusion may well be con-
ceded, that it was intended in this case that
the question shall be referred to that other
source of power, the people.
II may conjecture that it was supposed
that the language of this special act OF
March 18th would take it out of the opera
ton of the existing law, and that it was
supposed that the restriction of the act of
May 9th would not reach it; but my pres
ent duty is not to conjecture, and upon that
make law. must expeund the statutes on
what the Legislature have said. Not On
what it has omitted to say.
"But what is there in the terms of this
special act to show that this could not have
been the Intention? It is asked why au-
thorize the levy of tax, if the vote of the
people was necessary before the bridge
should be built? The answer is obvious.
ou must go to the Legislature for power
to levy tax of one mill on the dollar and
to borrow money. You can't build the
bridge until you get it. The question then
is, shall application .be made to the Legis-
lature to confer this power before or after
you take the vote? You can do either.
Again, it is said that this special act was
passed two months before the law of May
9. And on that day, for aught the General
Assembly could know, the tax may have
been levied, the money borrowed, and the
bridge put under contract. 1t could not,
therefore, have been intended that, notwith-
standing all this had been done, the question
must be submitted to the people. answer
certainly not. If the special act had thus
been executed, case would have been..made
which would remove the restriction. The
language of a general law, though sufficient
for the purpose, literally is not to be con-
strued as intended to operate on transac-
tions and things passed, done and closed,
before it took effect; but as none of these
things had been done on May 9, the argu-
ment fails"
The opinion then proceeds to consider
the objection urged in this connection, that
the construction claimed will give TO the
act retroactive operation, which is for
hidden by the Constitution. The Judge
holds that in no light can this be considered
a retroactive law in the sense in which the
prohibition is to be understood. 1t oper-
ates on no vested right of the citizen or of
a private corporation, but simply imposes
a rule by which these public agents are to be
governed in expending the public money.
|. 500 Silk Banner.
At a meeting of the Democratic County
Central and Executive Committees, held at
Thurman Hall, on Saturday, August 20,
the following resolution was unanimously
adopted:
Reso1ued, That the ward or township in