Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-06-18
DELAWARE GAZETTE AND STATE JOURNAL w LMINGIOl

said taxes of the plaintiff and TO abolish |
his office, is to conclude that there are no |
means for collecting the sixty thousand |
dollars due the county and remaining UNI
paid, and that it was therefore the inten-
ton Of the Legislature that the same
should he lost to the county.
To give the act of April 18th, 1871, the
Interpretation that the defendant can not
levy and distrain upon the said property Of
the plaintiff, for said taxes would be TO
make the said act retroactive. The general
presumption is against the retroactive
operation of statute. Upon the pre-
sumption that the Legislature does not IN
tend what is unjust rests the leaning
against giving certain statutes retrospect
tive operation. They are construed as
operating only on eases or facts which
| come into existence after the statutes were
| passed, unless a retrospective elect be
| clearly intended, Indeed, the rule to be
| derived from the comparison of a vast
number Of judicial utlerances upon this
| subject, seems to be- that, even i'll the abb
sence of constitutional obstacles to retro
action, a construction giving to the statute
| a prospective operation is always to be
| preferred, unless II purpose to give i a
i retrospective force is expressed by clear
and positive command, or 20 be inferred
| by necessary, unequivocal and unavod-
able implication from the words of the
statute taken by themselves and in connec-
ton with the subicctmatter, and the
occasion of the enactment, admitting Of
no reasonable doubt, but precluding all
question as to such Intention
To place the most favorable interpreta-
ton, for the plaintiff, on the act Of April
18th 1881, and assume for sake of the argu-
ment that the words used i'll "theli
widest and perhaps natural sense" abol-
ishcd the office Of the defendant, the con
clusiun must still remain that the said act
is at least susceptible of more than one
meaning" and may TO say the least be
interpreted, with equal fairness US moi
abolishing the Office of the defendant.
Then again the General Assembly can
not he presumed To have intended tC
abolish or take away the power of the col
leCtors for 1872 to collect, because they
have not, by express Language done so
Especially is this So, when we observe
that they have used apt and express words
to yaCate and abolish the offices of the col
lectors appointed or elected since the iirst
day of February, 1891; and that express
language Is confined to those collector,
alone. Therefore us all parts Of the statut,
must be constructed with reference t.
cacn other when we find no express pro
vision like that referred to, used witt
reference to collectors appointed beIor,
the first day Of February 1881, the conclu
sion is fair, that il was not intended t.
abolish such, The General Assembly ha,
indicated By what language il expresses it!
intent to abolish an Office in that used ii
its adjustment of the Offices of the collec
tors appointed or elected since the frs
day Of February 1871, aud it fails to us'
that language with reference TO any other
When il wants to abolish an office it doe
50 by referring to the office holder it doc
not abolish an office in the abstract merely
san office does not exist in the abstrac
and apart from some one who holds it,
Then again the defendants office hat
expired by law, and the power To Collcc
survived him, by law, for one year The
power attached to him personally to ena
Bile him to recoup himself, and 1t woul,
survive to his executors or administrators
BIZ the same law; but no one would SAY
that the executors or administrators bel,
the office of collector, or was abolished bl
the act in question, or that the power .
the executors or administrators under sncl
circumstances to collect, was taken ava,
or abolished BY amy Language therein con
tanned.
1t must be presumed that the Genera
Assembly by the passage of the act o
April 18th 1881, intended to improve tn
, mode of collecting and discussing tn
funds of New Castle county. And tn
/ conclusion that the defendant has tn
right to levy and diStrain upon the sal,
property of the plaintiff, for the paymen
Of the said taxes is in accordance with TIL
evident intention of the law-makin
, power, and apparently the only interpre
iatiun Of the act that can be made tina
this is agreeable To convenience, reasol
/ and Justice.
Court here adjourned until to-morrov
morning.
The prevailing impression is that
Z the court decides that the eX-collector
/, no longer have the power to collect th
unpaid taxes, special session of til
! Legislature will be called to remedy til
| defect.