State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Davis
| Decision Date | 14 May 1896 |
| Citation | 44 N.E. 511,55 Ohio St. 15 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DAVIS et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Action by the state, on the relation of the attorney general against John M. Davis and others.
The defendants are the county commissioners of Mahoning county. By the first cause of action inquiry is made touching the authority of the defendants to erect a bridge over the Mahoning river at Youngstown, on the line of Mahoning avenue at a cost exceeding $30,000, and to issue bonds therefor without having first submitted the propriety of the project to a vote of the electors of the county. The second cause of action challenges their authority with reference to the proposed construction of a bridge over the Mahoning river at South Market street at a cost of $200,000, without the approval of the electors of the county. The defendants, by their answer, admit that they are about to undertake said projects, to issue bonds therefor, and to levy a tax for the payment of such bonds. As authority for the project first mentioned they rely on the act of April 23, 1891 (88 Ohio Laws, 825), entitled ‘ An act to authorize the commissioners of Mahoning county to repair, extend reconstruct and rebuild one or more bridges across the Mahoning river, in the city of Youngstown, in said county.’ As authority for the execution of the project mentioned in the second cause of action the defendants rely upon an act passed April 24, 1896, entitled ‘ An act to authorize the commissioners of Mahoning county to build two overhead bridges across the Mahoning river.’ The cause is submitted on demurrer to the answer. Demurrer sustained.
1. Highway bridges, as well as the highways of which they are a part, are general subjects of legislation, within the meaning of the constitution.
2. The act of April 23, 1891 (88 Ohio Laws, 825) entitled ‘ An act to authorize the commissioners of Mahoning county to repair, extend, reconstruct and rebuild one or more bridges across the Mahoning river in the city of Youngstown, in said county,’ and the act of April 24, 1896, entitled ‘ An act to authorize the commissioners of Mahoning county to build two overhead bridges across the Mahoning river,’ are repugnant to section 26 of article 2 of the constitution, which ordains that ‘ all laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation throughout the state.’
F. S. Monnett, Atty. Gen., and Jones & Anderson, for plaintiff.
Kennedy & Graham and James P. Wilson, for defendants.
SHAUCK, J. (after stating the facts).
That the legislative acts referred to, if valid, confer the authority asserted by the defendants, is not disputed. The constitutional validity of those acts is the inevitable question. Their validity is denied upon the ground that they are in conflict with the limitation upon legislative power imposed by section 26 of article 2 of the constitution, which ordains that ‘ all laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation throughout the state.’ It is admitted that there has been no casualty which makes it impracticable to submit these projects to the electors of the county. By their express terms the operation of these acts is restricted to Mahoning county, and, yet more narrowly, to the construction of the bridges designated. They assume to authorize the erection of these structures at a cost exceeding $10,000 each, without the approving vote of the electors, which, except in cases of casualty, is required by the general law in force elsewhere in the state. Rev. St. § 2825. It is doubtless true that the absence of a general law upon the subject would not relieve the legislature of the limitation under consideration, nor affect the general character of the subject. There is, nevertheless, propriety in adverting to the fact that within less than two years from the taking effect of the present constitution this subject was comprehended in legislation of uniform operation throughout the entire state, and published under the title of ‘ Acts of a General Nature’ as distinguished from those of a local nature. Although the legislation operating thus uniformly has been frequently amended, it is yet in force, embracing the section of the Revised Statutes referred to. For many years there was no legislation of limited operation upon the subject. This legislative history not only shows how the subject was regarded by those who had aided in placing this limitation in the constitution, but it demonstrates the practicability of comprehending the entire subject in laws of uniform operation throughout the state.
The maxim stare decisis is invoked to support the legislation in question. Although numerous acts of local operation assuming to authorize the construction of highway bridges by county commissioners have been passed at recent dates, we are aware of no decision of this court by which they have been held valid. Their validity might well have been inferred from the view taken of this limitation in its application to highways in State v. Commissioners of Franklin Co., 35 Ohio St. 458, but that case has been expressly overruled. The subject was not even remotely involved in Cass v. Dillon, 2 Ohio St. 607. The point determined was stated with precision in the opinion of the majority. ‘ The decision of this case turns upon a single question, namely was the act of assembly of March 24, 1851, authorizing a subscription by Muskingum county to the capital stock of the C. W. & Z. R. R. Co., abrogated by the new constitution?’ In both opinions it was agreed that the act was valid under the former constitution, and that it would have been void if passed under that of 1851. Nothing that was said in the case upon the subject before us could have the force of a decision. The reference to Cass v. Dillon is nevertheless timely, for in a dissenting opinion (page 646), Ranney, J., who had recently borne a leading part in the convention which framed the present constitution, states concisely the occasion for, and the purpose of, the inhibitions against local legislation: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial