The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1869-08-27

Il LEE nAEt H~NN-N
language occu! 81
Whenever such petition shall be
presented to such Board of Commits
sioners, as aforesaid, signed By twen.
ty-five freeholders Of any township oi
such county, asking sHch totCnshlp Il
/ make an dDDrOprtQti0R Of money DC
/ If this does not contemplate the
township as q separate corporate
body, making an appropriation, there
is no meaning in words. Again, It i
said that Section 13 Of the act f0Tblds
/ the County Commissioners from APP
propriatiDg in each two years for rail-
road purposes, more than two pei
ccntum of the taxables of the county
or township. The prohibition is not
upon the County Commissioners, but
upon the county or toagaship, clearly
marking out Limitation upon the
corporate powers each.
1t is true that after the apprOpria-
ton is voted, either by the county or
/ township, the County Commissioners
make the levy of the tax, but we
think it an error to draw from this the
conclusion that, having done 1t IN one
| instance the Board cannot do 1t In
another. 1T is one Of the by no means
uncommon instances Of the same
agent acting for different persons or
corporations:
Another aid in the Interpretation Of
the act is found in the language Of the
first section. When an appropriation
is wanted from the county, it provides
that when a petition, &c, signed by
one hundred or more fTeeh0ldeTs of
said county, asking said Board to
make an appropriation of money, &c"
When the appropriation is wanted
from the township, the language is:
whenever such petition, &c,
signed by twenty-five ireeholders of
any township of said county, asking
such t0aCashiD to make an apprOpria-
tion of money, &c. Here is plain
recognition Of two distinct corporate
bodies, to be addressed, each, In par
ticular manner when called upon to
exercise its pOwers-the county,
through its representatives and the
eustodians Of its power, the County
Commissioners and the townships,
having no such representatives and
custodians, directly in the one in
stance you reach the cOTporators
through their agent; IN the other. you
appeal to the corporators themselves.
What could mere plainly show that
the legislators understood that they
were legislatiDg for two distinct, inde-
pendent bodies polite?
If it be admitted that the county
aud each of the townships are sepa-
rate bodies corporate, by what rule or
analogy is it held that the acts of one
can control or limit the rights or
powers Of the other? f..
It's one of the rules In the con-
struction of statutes that they should
be construed with reference to their
effects or Consequences. In other
words, if a proposed Interpretation of
q given law leads to absurd or hurt
fal- consequences, 1t must be avoided,
il the language Of the statute will
allow ii. Now if the actin question Is
not held to mean that the county and
townships each act for themselves
and independent Of each other. the
very absurd and inconvenient result
follows THAT one U0WusuTp, uy Hpprv-
priating two per eentum OF its tax
ables to railroad purposes, can defeat
any appropriation by the county for
the same purpose lo. so years. 70 be
repeated, possibly, tim ter me.
AS an illustration l., L,...1 az.
appropriation had been made Y the
county, Scott Township bad yoted
n donation to the E. aud i. Raj
road of two per centum of her tax
abfes. the county could make no dona-
ton to any railroad enterprise, be-
cause this can only be done by the
ybole county. comprising al the
townships; and Scott having already
donated her two per centum, could
not be included in any further appro-
priation. Certainly the common rules
Of English grammar ought not to be
tortured in order to accomplish
foll- like this. 1t Is no answer TO The
argument to say that the separate
townships might make appropriations,
for the absurdity still remains that
the power Of the county is absolutely
Leaving out of view the legal aspect
of the question, We desire TO ask, what
harm can be done TO anybody by
| allowing the citizens of the township
/ to say whether or not they are willing
to make the donation? If they vote
against it, there is an end of the mat
| ter. If they vote IN favor of 1t, then
the Question recurs, have they the
power2 If the people are willing to
give the money, they run no risk IN
the doubt as to the legality of the &C
ton, that being entirely upon the
part of those who spend their money
upon the faith that it is legal and
binding. f, after the vote shall have
determined IN favor of the donation,
the railroad cooperation proceeds TO
construct the road, and it subse-
ouently turns out that the township
has no power to make the ap
propriatiOn, nobody loses anything
but the company, and the town
shin gains the road. This qucs
ton can be raised in the courts
by anv taxpayer Of the township, anC
thoroughly and satisfactorily settled
whereas proceedings merely to com
pei the Commissioners to Order vote
! might, and probably would, be de
cided upon grounds leaving undeter
= | mined the main and important point
/ in controversy. We make this las
suggestion, dd capfdadunl, tiaatit ma.
: have its due weight Ia deciding wha
) is supposed TO be a doubtful question
though Tor ourselves, upon mature re
= Election and examination, we are sat
a isied that the law cOnfers the pove
3 npon the township, and that IL is tn
d dntv of the Commissioners to orde
7 the election as prayed for by the pet
lifion. JAS. G.. JoNEs,
G WM. +. PARRETT
IS BLxTHE HYNES
n u~=--~=-uuuuunuuasu-s
:, BuFpAIo, August &c. r Hoia
!. Greeley has accepted the lnvitatlC