The Fulton County news. [volume] (McConnellsburg, Pa.) 1899-current, 1904-02-17
HERE is THE REASON.
Why the County Commissioners do NOT
Pay a Bounty on Fox Scalps.
A CASE OF BUNGLINd LEGISLATION.
Legislature made two Efforts to Enact q Law
that would Secure Bounty for Killing
Foxes, and Didn't get II Worded Right. &,

oASo va icASS hihASog oho 0ShAoho
made for payment of the same, and
Notwithstanding the decision Of
Judge Swope few years ago
that the county is not liable for
any bounty on foxes, we publish
below for the information of ev-
erybody, the opinion of the court
in the case of Daniel Hamil, use
of Theo. Sipes, treasurer Of Full
ton county, verses The County of
Fulton, in No. 6 June term 1900.
The facts of the case submitted to
the court were briefly that Daniel
Hamilkilledagray foxin Tod town
ship, Fulton county, and produced
the pelt before Daniel Fore, a JUS
tee of the peace, made oath that
he had killed the animal and receiv.
ed from the justice a certificate
which was presented to the coun.
ty commissioners properly en-
dorsed and draft demanded IN
payment thereof which the com.
missioners refused. The certiti.
cate was then lifted by the coun-
ty treasurer and the case pres.
ented to the court.
The opinion was filed June II,
1900, and Is as follows:-
"This case stated involves the
constitutlonality of the Act of uly
8, 1897, p. L. 233 with Its amend
ment of April IL, 1899, P. L. 43,
allowing premiums for the de-
struction of wild cats, foxes, and
ninks in this commonwealth.
The act of July 9, 1897, is en-
titled "An act for the destruction
of wild cats, foxes and mlnks In
this commonwealth, and provid-
ing for the payment of bounties
on the same, officers fees and fix
ing a penalty for violation the
same.
The most important feature OF
this proposed legislation is that
liability for the bounty and fees.
Who is to pay the same The
state, county, or district Of the
county in which the animals are
killed? The title of the act gives
no notice of this IN any way.
The body of the act provides
for their payment by the county
treasurer on an order given by the
county commissioners, upon pro
duction of a certificate of a magis
trate, showing compliance with
the provisions of the act.
We are of opinion that this &C,
offends against Article 8. Sec. g.
of our state constitution, because
it's subject is not clearly express
ed in its title, and that it is there
fore unconstitution
This defect in the title of the
act of 1897, was sought to be rem
edied by the act of April IL, 1899
p. L 43, by merely amending the
title.
But the act of 1897 was voit
and dead, by reason of its infringe
ment on the constitution, ant
could not be resurrected in tina
way.
The effort so to do but resulted
in an additional constitutional in
fringement by offending agains
Article 3. Sec. 6, of our state con
stitution which provides, mo Law
shall be revived, amended, or the
provisions thereof extended o.
conferred by reference to itl
title only, but so much thereof a.
Is revived, amended, extended
or conferred, shall be reenactet
and published at length" Thil
same view was held by Judg
Purdy in Tuple VS.. Wayne coun
ty, 23 G. U. r. 361.
We discover no legal authorl
ty for the payment of the bount.
and fees IN question, aud judR
ment is directed to be entered II
favor If the defendant, costs t
be paid by the county OF Fulton.
1t will thus be seen that OWN
TO the bungling legislation on thi
subject there is no bounty o
premium on foxes, nor on auy
thing except wolves or wild cats
The decision Of Judge Swope