Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1885-12-18
Communicated to the scntlnel.)
Treasury Examination continued.

| In your editorial comments on my article in
| regard TO the Issuing OF an order for the exam
ination OF the Treasury, you say depend upon
| a mispunctuation Of the lava aemicolon in.
stead oil comma. In this you are (uninten-
uonally without doubD mistaken. claim that
the Function of the law repealed and the
amended law, is both correct whilo 1t differs in
both. 1t differed because the subject matter in
both laws differed In their effect and meaning
do not base my opinion on the punctuation
| alone by any means, although the punctuation
OF the laws sustains my position, but said
| nothing about TINT in my communication.
punctuation wrongly made would have no
bearing whatever. claim moro particularly,
| upon the intent, spirit and wording of the law
But that you have so stated, will endeavor
to show that the punctuation proves my posi-
| tion. In order to do this however both the old
and new laws should be examined. In section
1929, of the repealed law it will be noticed that
at the close OF that portion relating to the du-
Ties OF the Auditor and Commissioners, a semi.
colon appears; but in the amendment (see
session laws of 1885, page l73,) where the old law
| relating to the duties of the Auditor and Com.
nissfoners is transferred and Incorporated into
the amendment word for word, and at its close
| comma appears. No semi-colon appears in
| the new law until 1t appears preceding where
| the Judge is required TO issue an Order to-wit:
| ION the day and ut the timo the Treasurer
turns over the Office and Its effect to his Success
| sor." The amendment, by the punctuation,
| would indicate, down to whero the semi.colon
appears, that the Commissioners and Judges
duties are connected and the same. Tho old
law, by reason OF the semi-colon appearing at
the close of the Commissioners and Auditors
duties rould and docs indicate that ,rhat follows
| is of different nature In that granted to the
Auditor md Commissioners, to-wit: 1.-THE
power given to the Probate Judge to appoint an
examiner" In the words of the amendment
the Auditors, Commissioners and Probate
Judges duties are made the same to the semi
colon. to.wit: 10 inspect the Treasury. In the
old law the Auditors and Commissioners du-
ties are to inspect while the Probate Judge shall
! appoint;
/ will now take up the other point in dispute.
the principle has always been recognized by the
courts that 1t shall be so construed as to carry
out the effect and Intention of the law-mnking
Will deny. And from this standpoint / now
propose to examine both old and new law, for
they must necessarily be examined together In
order to get at the pr lper understanding OF the
meaning OF the new law. In reading the new
it will be seen that they incorporated into 1t so
much OF the old law as relates to the Auditors
Why did they do it7 Because tho law.making
power proposes to confer on them the same
| PoMCIs III tilc iltW INV tnht Iney nau
under the old law, and here they stop. No
more OF the old law is here incorporated in the
new law. Why not? Because in the old Inv it
gave the Probate Judge the power to appoint
once in SIX months person to examine tho
Treasury. Now, then, IL the law making power
had , intspded to have conferred on the Probate
Judge the authority to appoint an inspector
tho d anth 1s hy s S sF net nsorpo
they did that part relating to the Auditor and
Commissioners! For the very good reason that
the iaw,making power never intended to give
the Probate Judge power to appoint an Inspec-
tor IN six months or oftener, or they would
have incorporated that part of the old into the
amended law. How good this portion of the
law is, is not for me to say. Ii is sufficient,
however, for the purpose to know that the law
was so made with the full knowledge of the old
law law before them. Therefore, the plea that the
law implies the power to appoint an Inspector
once once In six months or oftener, cannot, as
think, be maintained after a full and careful
examination of both laws. And for the above
reasons alone, still think that the order issued
by the Probate Judge, for an examination, at
with the law.
This is all have to say about it.
E. TULLER.