The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1903-03-03
HUGHES KEEPS.
BENNET BUSY
Special Counsel Writes Again to Canton
Solicitor, Uniylng Kinks in
The Cod,.
SEEMING DISCREPANCIES CLEARED.
From a STAFF Correspondent, /,

ID.
From staff Correspondent)
Columbus, Feb 2S.--H Is evident
that Hon. Denver &C. Hughes. roic:-
tor of Canton, has not yet mastered
the new municipal code for he has
again written the attorney generals
department for further enlightenment
concerning the provisions Of this re-
markable document. His queries wei G
addressed to Attorney General Sheets,
but that official passed them up to
the Honorable Smith w. Bennett,
special counsel of the department,
who was deputized official interpre-
ter Of the code some weeks ago.
He has developed surprising apti
tude in the matter of Strengthening
out and harmonizing its incongru.t es.
In the appended communication,
Mr.. Bennett elucidates at length the
propositions submitted by Mr..
REPLY TO HUGHES.
Hon. d. c. Hughes, City Solicitor,
Canton, Ohio.
Dear Sir:-Yours of the Goth inst 4,
addressed to the attorney general, is
before me for answer. / note your in
quiry with regard to the construction
of the phrase fiscal year." as usei
in section AZ; incoming year." is
used in section S.; and coming
year." is used in section 81; bat col
sldering the same / would first say
that none of the duties required OF
ficers Of cities and villages in the Sec
tions cited, devolve uro1 present Of
ficers or departments, Tut that the
same does not become operative as q
rule for the guidance or such officers
until after the first Monday in May,
this year. You will note that s=ct Oh
81 specifies the directors and officers
who shall perform the duties named,
as those provided for in tbs acs."
NOT IN THE ORIGINAL.
The questions submitted In t1is
NitW vi tEC piopcoltloh Cll hdNS IO
present interest, but 1t is evident to
me the words fiscal year." and in
coming year." as used il the sections
above noted, cannot lie used in the
same sense. The fiscal year." unoer
the code, is the calendar y2ar e.ding
with the 31st day of December. Tho
reports under section IS and section
81 are similar in purpose. Section 81
was the section known in the gov
bill as section 40, but the bill
contained no such action as section
81. There seems to be no good pIr-
pose in requiring an estimate to be
made by section 49," the first Mon
day in March of each year, and an
other estimate" to be made. the last
Monday in March CT each
year by Z section 81. the pu.-
pose of each estimate evidently be-
ing the same, namely. to uniform the
mayor and other officers how much
money is needed for their respective
departments for the next year, bling
the incoming" or ensuing year.
ARISE FROM OVERSIGHT.
l think these two sections arse
from legislative oversight that the
same subject matter had been by
them twice provided for
Adopting the rule that all parts OF
an act should be construed together
10 as to make the same harmonious,
and so as to avoid absurd conclusion,
and carry out the legislative intention
IN each, I am inclined to say that "in-
coming" and ensuing" year bo.h re-
Ter to the same period oftime. and that
would be as defined by section 81.
and that If the reports or estimates
are made up and transmitted to the
mayor or auditor by the time mer-
Toned in section 81, that the intent OF
both sections has been complied
With, and that would mean only ono
yet of reports TO prepare. Yours truly.
SMITH w. BENNETT