The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1901-05-23

ute. 1t is quite clear that a county
commissioner is not a councilman,
burgess or director of corporation
within the intendment of the statute
Hence, if subject at all to the provls-
ions OF the Act, it must be as trustee
or manager OF the county as a cor
poration. In our judgment there can
be no substantial basis on which such
a construction can rest. 1t is true
that county commissioners are the
agents, trustees and managers of the
county and its financial affairs. They
are in fducIary capacity, and the
money of the county is expended on
orders drawn by them on the county
treasurer They have the custody
and control of the property Of the
county, and conduct all its litigation.
They exercise all the corporate pow
ers of the county. These are some
of the powers and duties that pertain
to the Office Of county commissioner.
But the Act does not subject parties
to its provisions because they possess
these powers or exercise these and
other prescribed duties, but because
they are included among the offic-
ials therein designated. 1t is, there.
fore, as one of the class of offic-
ers named in the statute that any
person is forbidden to become surety
for another and 1t is made subject to
penalties for violating its provisions.
The Office OF County Commissioner
is, as has been SAID, coeval with the
settlement of the country and is
recognized in and exists under the
present constitution Of the Common.
wealth. Any person familiar with the
Offices and affairs of the counties OF
the state knows of the office and gen
eral duties Of County Commissioner.
1t is as distinctive, definite and
we'll understood as the Office of
councilman or burgess. 1t, therefore,
cannot be presumed that the legislat-
ure when it passed the Act in question
did not know of this Office which is as
old as the state itself. On the con-
trary, it must be assumed that the
legislature knew of the Office and its
duties and Intentionally excluded il
from the provisions of the Act. As
easily could the legislature have pro-
hibited from becoming surety on an
official bond and named as subject to
the penalties imposed by the statute
a County Commissioned by his official
title as councilman or a burgess.
Unless it was the intention of the law
making power, no reason can be
assigned why County Commissioner
was not included in the Act. Naming
the officials set out in the statute
shows conclusively the legislative in
tent to exclude all other officials. Ex-
presslo unius est exclusio alterius.
We are dealing with a highly penal
statute and, as said by this Court of
the section in question, we cannot for
this reason extend it by implication
beyond its special meaning. The
construction we have given the
Act conforms to this we'll established
rule of Interpretation. 1t is not for
the Courts to extend the Act to
County Commissioners or to other
officials for reasons that moved the
legislature to make the Statute appli-
cable to the officials therein designated.
Those reasons, doubtless, were as
convincing why County Commission
er should have been included IN the
provisions of the statute as why a
councilman or burgess should have
been made subject to the Act, but it
is not the reasons that impelled the
legislature to pass the Act, nor the
meaning or spiri. Of the statute that
controls Its Interpretation and de-
termlnes whether the respondent is
within its terms. The fact that the
language of the Act does not clearly
include the Office held by the respond
ent excludes him from its operation.
In support of his position, the
learned trial Judge cites and relies
upon Commonwealth VS.. Morrisy, sc
Pa. AIT. He evidently confounds
the language of the two sections of
the Act. 1t was there held that the
treasurer OF school district was
township or municipal Office within
the terms of the 65th section of the
Act of March 81, 1860, which pro-
hibits under certain penalties "any
state, county, township or municipal
officer" charged with the collection
and disbursement Of public money,
from converting it to his own use. If
the Doth section had made it un-
lawful for any city, borough or county
officer instead OF councilman, burgess,
trustee or manager to do the acts
therein named, the case cited would
have been applicable and controlled
tho cnnctruct,np of tive HE,L eac,;nn