American Falls press. [volume] (American Falls, Idaho) 1907-1937, 1913-11-06

mana, ha the appraiser from Pow
er county insists the act creating
Franklin county reduced the amount
OF tho bonded indebtedness of
Oneida county existing and owing
at the time the Power county act
took effect. $40. 600 90, then said
bonded indebtedness OF Oneida coun
~ vas $500. 90
Did the act creating Franklin
county and tho assumption by
Franklin OF $50. 10000 OF the bond
ed Indebtedness Of oneida county
reduce In hal amount the total
bonded Indebtedness OF Oneida coun
y existing and owing at the time
the act creating Power county" took
effectg
Was the total bonded Indebted
neas OF oneida county "existdng and
owing at the time the act creating
Power county became effective s59.-
10000 or $4,000. 0O3 This Is
the question at issue.
II s contended by the appraiser
OF Oneida county, and not denied
by the representative OF Power coun
ty. that the Power county bill was
introduced and passed in the legis-
lature wholly independent OF the
Franklin county bill. and vice
versa. the Franklin county bill was
introduced and passed In the legis-
lature separate and apart from the
Power county bill. Neither bill was
related to the other, so far as their
Integrity was concerned. and neither
bin Was dependent on the other in
any way for its passage.
But. nevertheless. the frankie
county bin consummated a reduc-
ton In the mount OF the total
bonded indebtedness Of what origi-
naliy was Oneida county; the Pow
er county bill provided for an as
sumption by Power Of a certain pro-
portion OF the bonded indebtedness
of Oneida county; the Power coun-
~ bin was first considered and
passed by the house; neither bill.
therefore. having an appreciable adj
vantage IN point OF time as 20
what was the legislative intent
Both Of these bills were sent to the
chief executive OF the state and
signed by him on the same dates:
both Of these bills. carrying emery
ency clauses. became effective on
the same day. and resulted in max
ing three legal subdivisions OF
what originally was Oneida county.
Because OF these conditions. and
their proper consideration. to ascer-
tain the actual intent in this mat
ter OF the legislative bodies that
passed these bills. they must be
construed together.
They are so far as this quest on
is concerned in pari materia because'
OF their relationship 20 the same
subject matter. and having for their
purpose the same general object
In the construction Of a p~articu-
lar statute. or in the Interpretation
o. any Of its provisions. all acts
TO the same subject. OF hav
Ing the same general purpose
be read in connection with
T. as together constituting one law
SO Cyc li47;
Munger v L%enroot 50 Wis sal.
Grannis v san Francisco. ls6
Cal. st5. 20 Bac Ssl.
BARTON v. Moscow school Dist
Idaho. 270.
The rule that statutes in pari
naieria should be construed TO-
applies with peculiar force 70
statutes passed at the same session
% the legislature
SO Cyc 1l5i.
SAYS MI sutherland. In his work
statutory Construction al Sec
ion 2SS When enactments sen
made are read in pari ma
eria they are treated as having
ormed ia the minds of the enact,
ng body parts Of a connected whole
hoagh considered BY such body at
different dates. and under distinct
ma varied aspects OF the common
And our own supreme SQUIRT u
brown n Bryan is Idaho iil SAYS
hat such a prime PIE is 'n har-
aony with the actual practice OF
~ slatiYe bodseS and Is essential
. give uniU 10 the laws and con
.eet tAem in a symetrical system
C~onsidering these Two statutes to-
ether what then vas the bonded
a~debtedness q Oneida county al
be- itme the asst creating Power
oanp took eftects
When aid the act creating Power
aunN take effects
The act creating Franklin coun
IS printed and published in the 4,