The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1885-03-05

Some Facts.


enacted. 800. L., l64.)
This law required the payment of
called atax, into the county
treasury ON June 20, 1888.
This law by some was considered
unconstitutional. and the tax was paid
under protest into the county treasury.
On June 26, 1883, this law was by
the Supreme Court of Ohio declared
constitutional (State v. Frame and Ven
ner v. Bauder, SO o. ST., .9S
Ou October 2S, 1884, the Scott Law
was by the Supreme Court decided to
he unconstitutional. Estate v. Sinks, l..
Bull. Sup. Sc; AZ o. St.
After June 26, 1888, and before Octo-
btr 2S, 1884, the county treasurer dis
.rsed this tax. as provided hy the
statute aud the municipal and other
officers having 81 received. expended
the tax as authorized by the act,
Now, under the facts above stated
and the law. can The said tax, so a.
| aforesaid psid in. shurssd aud ex
pend-d, Le le-a!ly (nr tqniiablyl re-
covered back
Al the time the money was disburs-
ed aud expended by tue executive off,
&c rs Of the law, the Legislative aud ju-
dicial officers authorized aud required
such executive Officers Ia do rs they
did; now, will or caH such Legislative
or judicial authority by act or decree
of a retro active character, interfere
with the rights so acquired, or attach
u penalty to the bounden duty months
ago performed?
| SOME LAW.
"When q statute law receives con
s,ruction by the Judges constituting
the judicial tribunals of the State at the
time, or where those tribunals adopt q
practice under such statute, such con.
struction and such practice become y
part of the law. All taken together
constitute q rule of right and Of prop
erty. Rights are acquired, property i.
acquired, property is acquired in the
full confidence that while the tatut,
remains unchanged, the construction
, and practice will remain unchanged
If the construction is wrong
the legislative power can apply tn,
remedy, and the remedy so apple,
> will have but q prospective effect but i
the law or the construction of the Law
is changed by the court, such chang,
4 strikes at the foundation of all right
I acquired under the previous construc
l tion. 1t is shh0rrent to Oar feeling
3 that the legislature should enact law
5 which, In Its operation, dIvests an in
) dividual of rights with which he i
5 vested.
. an transfers Of property should be con
trolled by law as understood and adnlinistere
Z u4sp the trsasfsr was made" (Hitchcocl
J in Robb v. Lewis, o II. 7O8. T04)
a "If decision has been made upol
+ solemn arguments and mature DELHI
e erations, the presumption is in favo
t of its correctness; and the communit
j have right to regard it IS . Just dec
J. laratiOn or exposition OF the law, an
o to regulate their actions and contract
b by it." Il Kent Com, 476 6; see ais
y Cooley's Cons. Linn, So
i "If the law as heretofore pronount
e ed by the court, ia gipiag 9 eonstru,
: tion to the statute, ought not to stan,
y it is in the power of the legislature I
amend it without impairing rights acquire
gpder it," BARLEY, j., in White
: Denman ct al, o. S. ll5l
:, "A change in the judicial constru
:, ton of q statute, like an amendmel
/ thereto, will affect contracts pp0speetiv
" ly, not retroaetirely." (Syll.) Dougla
-, Y. Pike County, lOl U. s. (Supren
Court bff.
of We sre to consider, then, whethe
under these circumstances, we mu
o. follow the latter decisions 10 the g
Of temt of destroying rights which ha'
become vested under those given b
9, fore. As rule We trea' the constru
D. tion which the higheet poErt of !. STA
NJ has given a statute of the State, as
poie VI thc otatutCi anu SofSTu OuI
selves accordingly; but where diffe
~ ent constructions have been given
~ the same statute at d hsseat times, v
" have never felt ourselves bound 10 f,
/ low the latest decisions, il theret
r contract rights which accrued uud
earlier rulings will be injuriously d
!, fected." Opinion. same case see, y
so, authorities cited ia same)
rs coacLUsfoE.
v The conclusion arrived at, then,
:, that neither the Legislature nor Il
D Supreme Court can c0nstitutionally /
1t act or decree affect retro actively the Ugh
"a acquired under the Scott law, as col
% structed by the Supreme Court, Jun
n 20, 1885,; and adapting the language
'e Judge Ranney in the case of Mays
lr Cincinnati q o. s. R., o79) to this la
!. it is suggested that the justice of Il
ID case, no less than the law. is again
Is those who ask for the return of IL
Scott Law Tag. They have enjoys
~ the monopoly the law was calculate
\. to afford and il 10 fair to presume,
le in all such cases, that they got ba,
!. the money paid Into the county trea
Of ury, from their customers, in the i
ir creased price of the commodity sol
j. A. e. DIBoLL
nj 4. e. CIEvENGER.
n WILMINGTON, o.
e.j-G Weekly Law Bulletin.