Connecticut western news., 1891-07-09

would be completely stripped of any legal authority to go step forward. The county representatives and senators could thus tie up all the powers of the board of managers and the county con- missioners.
 It may be said that this is not the precise situation in this case, but such situation might arise and the Court uses it IS 8 test of the truth of the theory of the plaintiffs claim that an appropriation must in all cases precede the action of the commissioners in the matter of the purchase of real or per sonal estate to take such action out of the category of illegal and unauthorized acts. I cannot think that 1t was ever intended by the framers of this act con- corning temporary homes that the man. agers of this charity and the county commissioners should or could possibly be hampered as 8 matter of law by such a refusal to appropriate the necessary funds. It would be very impolitic in- depreciation to place upon the relations of the county representatives and sena- tors to the machinery of this statute. The statute should be construed to make it effective and if possible to carry out the plain objects and purposes of if, and to guard against and give no room for obstruction. If the court were to adopt the opposite theory the result might be the abandonment of every temporary home in the state and an utter defeat of the humane and bene- ficent purposes and objects of this sta tute If the mere refusal of the county representatives and senators to make an appropriation does not affect the powers and authority of the county commis- sioners, does the mere neglect of the county commissioners to make such estimates and present it beforehand to county representatives and senators af feet that result? In other words, does it make any difference with reference to this question of law achy the appropria- tion has not been made so long as it has not been made? If it's existence is sine qua non to the power of these commis- sioners to purchase, does 1t make any real difference why such an appropria- tion is not in existence? think not.
 It is true that the board has not as yet asked for an appropriation for this purpose, but it is equally apparent from the record furnished by the plaintiff that, if they should ask it, it would be refused. .-..
 All that I have stated heretofore as- sumes, without admitting the fact to be so, that section 3662 is intended to in- clude the questions of expense com plained of in this case. And, now. as to the legal barrier which sections BIT and 378 present to the exercise of the au- thority claimed by the county commis- sioners to purchase real estate Do these sections offer any serious objections to such authority? Is there any express or implied limitation of authority to pur- chase under section 3656? The court can not see that there is. Section 377 simply provides that the county repre- aentatives, and other bodies therein named. may make appropriations of specific sums of money for any purpose authorized by law. The next section, 378, provides that whenever specific ap- propriation has been made, the county commissioners shall willfully authorize or contract for the expenditure of any money or the creation of any debt for any purpose in excess of the amount specifically appropriated for such pur- pose, he shall be punished by fine or imprisonment or both. Now, perhaps, 1t might be enough to say it is not claimed that there has ever been any specific appropriation made by the county representatives and senators for this real estate purchase or the furnish ing of this home. Neither Is there any allegation to that effect, but to the con- trary. Neither has it been alleged that there has been any appropriation made for the purposes of this home for the coming year. Neither does it appear that the purchase of this property would be an expenditure in excess of any specific appropriation. So that it does not clearly appear that the com missioners, if they really completed this purchase would be liable to any of the penalties fixed therein. I do not think these last sections should have any controlling effect in this case.
 The Court dissolves this injunction, but I feel it my duty to say to these county mmissioners that, in carrying out the charitable and humane work of this Act, harmony of sentiment and action between the existing powers and boards IS of the utmost importance. No law. however good or however humane it's purposes, can be executed in ali its excellence and vigor and with all it's beneficial results, except it be done in the same spirit and the same freedom from passion and partisan feeling as that which dictated it's creation.