Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1883-03-12
THE DYNAMITE AMENDMENT.
An ohio Case Brought to Gear on the
Middle.
TO ire Editor II TIE Register

10 me EuttOT ~ me hcQtsLeT.
In the matter Of "FirSt Glass Mud
die" allow me to call your attention to
the case of Cass Va. Dillon, 2 Ohio ST.,
GOT. The facts OF the case were as fol-
lows:
On the 9th day of March, 1851, the
General Assembly Of Ohio passed an
act authorizing the county of Muskin-
gum 10 subscribe to the capital stock of
a certain railroad company upon the
condition that such subscription should
be approved by majority of the cleo
tors voting st All election held
upon notice for that purpose. This vote
was taken on the 18th day of October
in that year; aud a majority of the
electors voting in favor of the subscrip-
ton, the County Commissioners, on
the 18th of the same month,
subscribed to the stock of the
company; and on the 18th OF June, 1852,
levied tax to pay the interest on the
subscription. The plaintiff, Co.'S, re-
fused to pay the tax; and the treasurer
of the county, Dillon, seized and sold
his property and made the amount of
the tax. Subsequently to the passage
of said act, but prior to any action I'M
der il, tO-wit: on the lst of September,
1851, a new Constitution took effect pro-
hibiting such subscriptions by counties.
Ii was held by the Supreme Court of
Ohio, Judge Thurman announcing the
opinion of the court, that the act of
March oath, 1851, was not repealed by
the new Constitution, that instrument
plainly referring to future legislation
alone, and not prohibiting subscriptions
under existing laws, but the making OF
any more such laws.
Will not this decision quiet your fears
to one of the causes of the "muddle,"
viz: The repeal by the ratification of the
proposed amendment of the election
law OF 1852.
The Constitution of this State pro-
Yides, that the general election for State,
district, county, and other officers shall
be held on the second Tuesday of Octo-
Der; and under the election law of 1882
a general election for all such officers
must be held on the second Tuesday of
! October, 1884. On the same day pro-
posed amendment to the Constitution,
providing that the general elections fer
state and other officers shall be held on
the Tuesday after the first Monday OF
November, will be voted upon by the
people. Ii they ratify this proposed
amendment, you fear, if | understand
YOU, that the effect will be the repeal of
tie election law of lSS2, or so much
thereof as fixes the day of election, and
the necessity of holding another elec-
ton for State officers in November fol-
lowing. Ii seems to me in the light OF
tie decision OF the Ohio supreme Court,
that the effect of the ratification of the
proposed amendment, will not be to re-
peal the election law of 1882, or to null.
lily the election Of October, 1884, held
Under that law, but simply to require
that all future general elections shall be
held on the Tuesday succeeding the first
Monday of November. Adopting the
language Of Judge Thurman in the Ohio
case, there is no repugnancy between
the election law of 1852, enacted before
the amendment, and that amendment
The amendment plainly refers to elec
tions, which may be held after its adop
ton. LAWYER.