Case Name: State ex rel. F. C. Ampt et al. v. John H. Gibson (Treas. of Hamilton Co.) et al.
Court: Hamilton Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1904-07-30
Citations: 16 Ohio C.C. Dec. 784
Docket Number: 
Parties: State ex rel. F. C. Ampt et al. v. John H. Gibson (Treas. of Hamilton Co.) et al.
Judges: Giffen and Swing, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Decisions
Volume: 16
Pages: 784–784

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
[Hamilton (6th) Circuit Court,
July 30, 1904.]
G-iffen, Jelke and Swing, JJ.
State ex rel. F. C. Ampt et al. v. John H. Gibson (Treas. of Hamilton Co.) et al.
Act of April, 1904,- for Relief of Certain County Officers not Unconstitutional.
Act of April, 1904, entitled an “act for the relief of 'county treasurers and county commissioners,” does not.contravene Sec. 16, Bill of Rights; See. 32, Art. 2; or Sec. 1, Art. 4, Const, as being legislative interference with the judgment of a court; neither is said act opposed'to Sec; 28, Art. 28, Const, as being retroactive.
ERROR to Hamilton common pleas court.
F. C. Ampt, L. A. Ireton, N. R. Collins and W. M. Schoenle, for plaintiffs in error.
F. F. Dinsmore, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
JELKE, J.
We are of opinion that the act of April, 1904, entitled an, "Act for the relief of county treasurers and county commissioners" does not contravene Sec. 16, Art. 1; See. 32, Art. 2; or Sec. 1, Art. 4 of the constitution, as being legislative interference with the judgment of a court.
This act is passed in recognition of the binding force and effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court in cause No. 8737, in deference to said judgment and because of it.
Neither is said act opposed to Sec. 28, Art. 2 of the constitution as being retroactive. The power to make laws recognizing the moral claim involved in past transactions has always been recognized by the highest tribunals and never held to be retroactive in the sense provided against this and similar constitutional sections.
The legislature was fully informed as to all facts with which it was dealing, and no mistake of fact appearing, no matter what we may think of the wisdom or'moral purpose of this act, the conscience of the legislature is not to be measured by the conscience of this court.
The courts will not review this phase of an act of the legislature. We approve the opinion of the court below and its judgment will be affirmed.
Giffen and Swing, JJ., concur.