The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1881-01-15

u | ne ueleTlnlneu under The ObllBallOns OF the
J. oaths of the members of the legislature,
alone.
n ltis german to this branch of the argll-
!. ment to state that excessive taxation and
+ reckless expenditure by county and other
# boards, IL one of the recognized evils Of the
times; and that in every recent American
| constitution, provisions are made either
\ directly restricting such taxation or requir-
r ing the legislature 10 do so. In only one
+ instance have We found Il provision allow
, ing local taxation beyond the control of
, the Legislature, and that is in the cOnstitu-
! tlon of Nevada securing to cities in that
ranless land the power of procuring nee
essary water So in order TO arrive at the
construction rejected by us we must not
only disregard the plain meaning OF the
language employed and the constitutional
history of the State, but we must even run
counter TO the general current Of constitu-
tional provisions ON the subject.
The construction sanctioned by the
| court in the two eases alluded. to, encOun-
tiers this further difficulty. If the boards of
raise what sum they may deem suf-
ficient for the purposes mentioned in
the Section, they have also the same
unrestricted TO determine Tor them
| selves what "Other necessary con-
veniences for the people of the county
they wi supply out OF this unlimited fund.
| There is no restriction AS 10 the objects 10
which the tax may be applied, except only
the discretion Of the Board, and their judg-
ment that they are necessary cOnveniences
| for the people. "A power 50 ample may well
be deemed alarming. Such sway over
| private property has never been granted to ;
| any body of Magistracy in "a free govern |
mcnt. The existence Of the power would |
be absolutely inconsistent with the institu- |
| tiOn of private property itself. The adyO- |
| Gates Ofthis construction the Constitution |
| shrink from claiming so enormous and dan
| gerOus power for the Board of Super
| yisors.
In the recent Code of this State, by See.
| 2l50 the " necessary cOnyeniences" are re-
| stricted to county buildings other than
| jails and cOurthouses. This provision
would be unconstitutional If We are in
| error as to the true meaning of the section
| in controversy. There IL nOreasOn arising
from the language used or from other parts
of the Constitution, which would deprive
the legislature Of lis power TO limit and fix
the amount Ofthe special tax, and yet would
allow il to interior to limit the Unnecessary
convenenccs" TO which the tax may be ap-
piled. The words Unnecessary cOnyenien-
ces' are embraced in the same sentence
with 'court-h0uses, bridges and jails' and
separated from them only by the like pune
tuati0n mark which separates these from
each other, and there Is no rule of gram
mar or construction which authorize us
to say there Is less control in the Board over
one than the other.
II is also fatal TO this view, that IL as
sumes that the right Of the county Boards
10 levy unlimited taxes for the purposes
mentioned, and independent of any control
by the legislature, was deemed so import
ant by the Convention as to demand pro-
vision to that effect. Yet the very clause
intended to secure this essential erd, ac-
cOmplishes only half of the purpose in ad-
mitting legislative interference as to the
other half.
The conclusion is irresistible that if the
laUi lafn na iunif uuI ral ~ | !
of the Board TO tax as TO ''necesssry conyen-
fences, il may do the same as to court
houses, jails and bridges.
Ii Il also rule of construction Of constI-
tutions and statutes, that the instrument
should be made II possible harmonious and
consistent with itself. Its trainers are pre-
sumed to have consistent and definite
policy which is the key to all the provisions
on the same subject-matter, and that which ,
is clearly within the same mischief Is in
tended to he within the same remedy. IL
Is not to be presumed that provisions were
inserted ut random, 10 slIbserve some de-
tached and isolated purpose. In constitu-
tions especially, we are TO look for u care
nIl and well digestcd plan of government
under which there may be a regular, we'll I
ordered and harmo administration. To
justify the construction contended for by the .
appellant, we must suppose the Conven- I
tion was moved by mischief felt as then
existing as TO the unwllingness the legis-
|
and jails, and the means of in
tercourse and commerce among the people,
and that II intended 10 remedy this mis-
chief by securing an absolute control over Z
these matters In the boards Of Supervisors. o
II is impossible 30 conceive any other foun- q
dation for this section, IL IL DE constructs as n
contended for. n
hut as to the means of intercourse, pro- u
vision is made only for part, and that too, r.
not very essential part of this important =,
subject. As 10 roads and ferries-the first u
an essential aud the second an important u
part Of the means Of intercourse-thep pow $,
er Of the legislature Ia limit and restrict the "
board OF supervisors Is unquestiOned. In | N
hat part Of the opinion In which all the u
Judges concur, 10 Is held THAT the board of ~ ~
supervisors cannot expend "A dollar for | e'
or repairing roads without the con q
'cBt of the Legislature" and the same prin- q
,iple was announced in respect 90 ferries, o.
n Supervisors v. McFadden, 81 Miss, 6IS. nj
Under that construction. the constitution n,
means that the legislature may not be trust =,
ii with power to grant the means TO build " !"
bridges, but may as to the roads over which u
lccess 10 the bridges II alone possible and W
without which the bridges would be utterly al
'aluless. The board Of supervisors cannot III
pend dollar TO repair a road or ferry-to o,
make causeway, or drain a pond over co
which road H. located; but may without -,
imitation or restriction build a bridge 81
wherever they may deem proper. Thus w
{ Is seen that this great public ui
'Olicy supposed TO he inaugurated by this pl
lection so far rs the means Of Intercourse i'm
nd travel are concerned, is found TO ex- h,
'end itself in securing the building Of ~
bridges. A construction which -. -.
involves such Il conclusion should not be VI
dopted. sc
Il is well settled that courts ought pI
ot, except In eases admitting Of no W
easonable doubt, to take upon themselves Ia
o say that the legislature has exceeded its as
owers and violated the constitution, es- .,
ecially when the legislative construction az
as been given TO the constitution by those VI
tho framed its provisions and contempo- OF
aneous with its adoption. (sedgewick al
construction, page 400, and pr
ases there cited). This rule has been In
nIly recognized in this State. Campbell n,
5. Union Bank. III. 62s. Newson VS.. ~,
doptcd contemporaneously with the "a "a
the power Of the Leg Jol
'lature to restrict and limit the power OF
board OF supervisors to levy the us
pccial tax named in the constitution UNI th
er consideration. was asserted and a limit de
imposed (see Code Of 1871, See. 1897 The uJ ,.,l
ame restriction Is imposed by the Acts OF "
SO page 10 Sec. II. and by Sec. I, Chap. SCI
!, page 81, Of the Acts Of is,5, and by See. er'
u, Chap. 5, page ~ Of the Acts Of 1873, BE
as st. 0 Of 'f isso Iii. Ps Uniform m q con- on Sa tS
ruction put on the Section by the or,
gislature ough; not under well set -
ed rules 70 be disregarded by the oe
ourt except in a very clear case. Our ca
hole history under the constitution OF
,0D has been under successive statutes, lin
in force, and five times en- wi
tied, putting the construction we adopt IN,
\ this clause OF the constitution. IL Is not -,
be presumed that the legislature did not h''
nderstand or did not observe the con-
itution.
These enactments must prevail unless de
ley can be shown to be clearly wrong, and of
peciallyis IA this true where the question In ms
1lyed i purely administrative and p0- ~,
tical. not touching upon private rights. y. ~.
re have deemed Il our duty at some ou
myth TO state the reasons for our Gu
Idgment because there are two decisions pc
I this Court to the contrary, to-wit: s.