
    State ex rel. Wilson, County Solicitor, v. Lewis, Auditor, et al. Thomas et al. v. State ex rel. Gilbert, a Taxpayer.
    
      Tax inquisitors — Law authorising their employment by county commissioners — Act of April 10, 1888 — Act of April 83, 1885 —Sections 1343-1 to 1843-4 and 1848a and 1848b, Revised Statutes — Invalidity of acts because of special nature — Section 86 of article 8 of the constitution — Uniformity of laws— Constitutional law.
    
    1. Since it is not within the judicial function to give to a statute an operation which the legislature does not intend, the Act of April 10, 1888 (Revised Statutes, sections 1343-1 to 1343-4 inclusive), to authorize the employment of tax inquisitors, cannot by interpretation be extended to the four counties in which the Act of April 23, 1885 (Revised Statutes, sections 1343a and 13436), was intended to be operative, the legislative intention to provide for their concurrent operation being expressed in the later act.
    2. The acts relate to a subject of a general nature and, there being substantial differences in their provisions, they are repugnant to section 26, article 2 of the constitution which requires that “all laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation throughout the state.”
    (Nos. 9807 and 9913
    Decided June 26, 1906.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.
    Error to the Circuit Court of Montgomery county.
    In case No. 9807, State ex rel. Wilson v. Lewis, suit was brought in the superior court of Cincinnati by the county solicitor to enjoin the further execution of making payments under a contract entered into between the auditor, treasurer and commissioners of Hamilton county of one part and H. W. Morganthaler of the other, the contract being in substance that said Morganthaler was employed to ascertain and furnish to the county auditor of Hamilton county facts and evidence necessary to authorize the auditor to subject to taxation property improperly omitted from the tax lists and duplicates, to continue in force from the seventeenth day of September, 1902, to the eleventh day of February, 1905, and providing for the compensation of said Morganthaler for said services at the rate of twenty per centum of the money so caused to be paid into the treasury. ' The contract was alleged to be void for numerous reasons among them that the laws of the state made it the duty of the county auditor to ascertain said facts and discover said evidence and that, therefore, the contemplated payments to Morganthaler would be a misapplication of public moneys and that there was no authority of law for the making of such contract. In the special term of the superior court demurrers to the petition were sustained and the petition was dismissed. That judgment was affirmed by the general term.
    In case No. 9913, Thomas et al. v. State ex rel. Gilbert, suit was brought in the court of common pleas by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error who are the acting tax inquisitor and the auditor and treasurer and commissioners of Montgomery county to enjoin the further performance of a like contract for the rendering of like services in Montgomery county for a like compensation and to enjoin the further payment of such compensation. The contract was alleged to be void for numerous reasons among them that there was no valid legislation to authorize it and that the contract purports to give to said Thomas, the inquisitor, the exclusive right and entire discretion in the matter of investigation .and examination for omitted property. Issues of fact were joined upon which the cause was tried, the record before us being made in the circuit court to which an appeal had been taken from the judgment of the court of common pleas. The conclusion of law reached by the circuit court was that the statute by which the contract was supposed to he authorized was unconstitutional and void.
    The cases, involve both the validity and interpretation of two acts of the general assembly touching the employment of tax inquisitors. They are known as the acts of 1885 and 1888. Those acts with their sectional numbers in the Revised Statutes are as follows:
    Act ok 1885.
    R. S. 1343a. ‘ ‘ That the county commissioners, county auditor and county treasurer, or a majority of said officers of any county in this state containing a city of the first class, and in any county •containing a city of the first grade of the second class, shall have full power and final power to employ any person or persons to ascertain ■ and furnish to the county auditor the facts and evidence necessary to authorize him to subject to taxation any property improperly omitted from the tax duplicate; no payment for such services to be made except in accordance with the terms of an agreement between the said officers, or a majority of them, and such person or persons; and. such payment shall be made to such person or persons only out of money actually paid into the county • treasury- as taxes on such omitted property; and such-coinpensation shall he apportioned ratably by the county auditor among all the funds entitled to share in the distribution of such taxes, including the state itself, as well as the counties, townships, cities, villages, school districts, and other organizations entitled thereto. ’ ’■
    R. S. 1343&. “Any assessor in such counties who shall wilfully omit to return any property for taxation, or any auditor who shall wilfully omit any property from the tax duplicate that is liable to taxation, or any persons conspiring to wrongfully increase the number or amount of any tax omissions, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof before any court of competent jurisdiction, shall be sentenced by the said court to pay a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding sixty days or both, at the discretion of the court, and it is ¡hereby made the duty of the prosecuting attorney of the county to enforce the provisions of this section.”
    Act of 1888.
    R. & 1343-1. “The county commissioners, county auditor, and county treasurer, or a majority of said officers in any county, when they have reason to believe that there has not been a full return of property within the county for taxation, shall have power to employ any person to make inquiry and furnish the county auditor the facts as to any omissions of property for taxation and the evidence necessary to authorize him to subject to taxation any property improperly omitted from the tax duplicate; no payment to be made for such services except in accordance with the terms of agreement between the officers, or a majority of them and such person, and such payment shall be made only out of monéy actually paid into the county treasury as taxes on such omitted property, and such compensation shall not exceed 20 per cent, of the amount of such taxes, on the returns of omitted moneys, credits, investments in bonds, stocks, joint-stocks, annuities or other valuable interests, held by a resident of this state or by others for him; and all such allowances shall be apportioned ratably by the county auditor among all the funds entitled to share in the distribution of such taxes. ’ ’
    R. S. 1343-2. “Any assessor who shall wilfully omit to return any property for taxation, or any auditor who, shall wilfully omit any property from the tax duplicate that is liable to taxation, or any persons conspiring to wilfully increase the number or amount of any tax omissions shall, upon conviction thereof, pay a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars, or he imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding sixty days, or both. ’ ’
    R. S. 1343-3. “The person or persons with whom the contract provided for in section one of this act is made, shall, before entering upon such employment, give bond to the state in the sum of one thousand dollars, conditioned on the faithful performance of the duties required by the contract; said bond shall be approved by a majority .of those authorized to make the appointment and filed with the county auditor.”
    R. S. 1343-4. “This act shall not in any manner affect the provisions of sections one thous- and, three hundred and forty-three (a) and one thousand, three hundred and forty-three (b) of the Revised Statutes of Ohio, as enacted April 20,1885. ”
    
      Messrs. Ireton, Collins, Schoenle é Poor and Messrs. Horstman $ Horstman, for the solicitor of Hamilton county, plaintiff in error (in case No. 9807),
    cited and commented upon the following-authorities :
    
      State ex rel. v. Cappeller, 39 Ohio St., 213; sec. 26 and 28, art. 2, Const.; act of April 14, 1880; 77 O. L., 205; State ex rel. v. Hagerty, 3 Circ. Dec., 161; 5 C. C. R., 325; State ex rel. v. Crites, 48 Ohio St., 142; State v. Lewis, 12 Ohio Dec., 46; State ex rel. v. Garver, 66 Ohio St., 555; State ex rel. v. Yates, Auditor, 66 Ohio St., 546; Gaylord v. Hubbard, 56 Ohio St., 25; State ex rel. v. Buckley, 60 Ohio St., 296; Burt v. Rattle, 31 Ohio St., 116; State ex rel. v. Baker, 55 Ohio St., 1; 90 L. Loc. L., 346; State v. Brewster, 39 Ohio St., 653; State ex rel. v. Bargus, 53 Ohio St., 94; secs. 1343-1, 1343-2, 1343-3, 1343-4, Rev. Stat. (1888); secs. 1343a and 1343b, Rev. Stat. (1885).
    
      Mr. Alfred B. Benedict and Messrs. Doyle, Lewis & Schaufelberger, for defendant in error (in case No. 9807),
    cited and commented upon the following authorities:
    
      State ex rel v. Crites, 48 Ohio St., 142; State ex rel. v. Buckley, 60 Ohio St., 273; Burt v. Rattle, 31 Ohio St., 116; 1 Sutherland on Statutory Construction, secs. 306, 598; State ex rel. v. Baker, 55 Ohio St., 1; People v. Knopf, 183 Ill., 410; Turner v. Fish, 19 Nev., 295; Hale v. McGettigan, 114 Cal., 112; Gager v. Prout, 48 Ohio St., 89; State ex rel v. Dombaugh, 20 Ohio St., 167; Railroad v. Commissioners, 31 Ohio St., 338; Gibbons v. Catholic Institute, 34 Ohio St., 289; In re Assignment of Judges to Hold District Court, 34 Ohio St., 431; Adler v. Whitbeck, 44 Ohio St., 539; Commonwealth v. Kimball, 24 Pick., 362; Cooley on Constitutional Limitation, 178; Bishop on Written Laws, sec. 34; People v. Kenney, 96 N. Y., 294; State v. Frame, 39 Ohio St., 411; People v. Hull, 46 N. Y., 57; Lathrop v. Mills, 19 Cal., 513; Allen v. Louisiana, 103 U. S., 80; Treasurer v. Bank, 47 Ohio St., 503; Stevens v. State, 3 Ohio St., 455; Musser v. Adair, 55 Ohio St., 466; Commonwealth v. Hitchings, 5 Gray, 482; Commonwealth v. Kimball, 24 Pick., 362; Robinson v. Bidwell, 22 Cal., 379; Hagerstown v. Dechert, 32 Md., 369; Exchange Bank v. Hines, 3 Ohio St., 15; Bowles v. State, 37 Ohio St., 35; Cooley on Constitutional Limitation (6 ed), 211; Gager, Treas. v. Prout, 48 Ohio St., 108; Kelley v. State, 6 Ohio St., 269; Toledo Commercial Co. v. Manufacturing Co., 55 Ohio St., 220; Railway Co. v. Cox, 55 Ohio St., 510; Cincinnati v. Connor, 55 Ohio St., 82; Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S., 80; Baldwin v. Frank, 120 U. S., 678; Kimmish v. Ball, 129 U. S., 217; Field v. Clark, 143 U. S., 649; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S., 252; Taylor v. United States, 3 How., 210; Cliquot v. United States, 3 Wall., 114; State v. Sinks, 42 Ohio St., 351; Piqua v. Zimmerlin, 35 Ohio St., 507; Sedgwick on Statutory and Constitutional Constructions, 243; Paulinas Cargo v. United States, 7 Cranch, 60; Brower v. Hunt, 18 Ohio St., 341; Smith’s Commentaries on Statute & Constitutional Law, secs. 714, 647, 648; Dwarris, 582, 583; Wood v. United States, 18 Pet., 231; Commissioners v. Society for Savings, 90 Fed. Rep., 233; McCool v. Smith, 66 U. S. (1 Black), 459; Canal Co. v. Railroad, 4 Grill & J., 1; Bowen v. Lease, 5 Hill, 221; Williams v. Potter, 2 Barb., 316; State ex rel. v. Commissioners, 20 Ohio St., 424; Raudebaugh et al. v. Shelley, 6 Ohio St., 316; Ludlow v. Johnson, 3 Ohio, 553; Dodge v. Gridley, 10 Ohio, 173; Buckingham v. Railway Co., 
      10 Ohio St., 27; Gallup v. Commissioners, 20 Ohio St., 324; Quigley v. State, 3 Circ. Dec., 310; 5 C. C. R., 638; State v. Quigley, 11 Dec. Re., 340; 26 W. L. B., 129; Commissioners v. Board of Public Works, 39 Ohio St., 632; secs. 1343a and 1343b, Rev. Stat. (1885); secs. 1343-1, 1343-2, 1343-3 and 1343-4, Rev. Stat. (1888).
    
      Messrs. Bosler & Emanuel; Messrs. Young & Young and Mr. I. H. Goeke, for James R. Thomas et al., plaintiffs in error (in case No. 9913),
    cited and commented npon the following authorities:
    
      McCormick v. Alexander, 2 Ohio, 65; Lewis v. McElvain, 16 Ohio, 347; State v. Price, 4 Circ. Dec., 296; 8 C. C. R., 25; Railroad v. Clinton Co., 1 Ohio St., 77; Lehman v. McBride, 15 Ohio St., 573; Ireland v. Turnpike Co., 19 Ohio St., 369; State v. Cincinnati, 20 Ohio St., 18; Walker v. Cincinnati, 21 Ohio St., 14; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Mayer, 28 Ohio St., 521; Cincinnati v. Bryson, 15 Ohio, 625; Black on Interpretations, 307; Saterlee v. Stevens, 11 Ohio, 420; Tracy v. Card, 2 Ohio St., 431; Pollock v. Speidel, 27 Ohio St., 86; Cross v. Armstrong, 44 Ohio St., 613; State v. Peck, 25 Ohio St., 28; Platt v. Craig, 66 Ohio St., 75; Brower v. Hunt, 18 Ohio St., 341; Slingluff v. Weaver, 66 Ohio St., 628; Treasurer v. Bank, 47 Ohio St., 523; Bowles v. State, 37 Ohio St., 43; State v. Sinks, 42 Ohio St., 351; Commissioners v. Brown, 14 O. D., 241; State v. Russell, 11 Circ. Dec., 299; 20 C. C. R., 557; Chesnut v. Shane’s Lessee, 16 Ohio, 625; 8 Cyc., 804; Pump v. Commissioners et al., 69 Ohio St., 448; Burt v. Rattle, 31 Ohio St., 116; Robinson v. Rippey, 111 Ind., 116; Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. (U. S.), 105; Hurst v. Samuels, 29 S. C., 476; State 
      v. Buckley, 60 Ohio St., 273; Railway v. Amrine, 10 Kan., 318; Butler v. Bailey, 2 (Bay) S. C., 244; Burlington v. Railway, 41 Ia., 134; Burgunder et al. v. Weil et al., 60 Ohio St., 242; Commissioners v. State ex rel., 50 Ohio St., 653; Deckebach v. Hagerty, Auditor, 3 Circ. Dec., 161; 5 C. C. R., 326; Insurance Co. v. Hard, Treas., 59 Ohio St., 248; McGoldrick v. Lewis, 12 Ohio Dec., 48; Musser v. Adair, 55 Ohio St., 476; Lessee v. Burgett, 1 Ohio, 469; Steamboat v. Finley, 10 Ohio, 384; State v. Granville Alexandrian Society, 11 Ohio, 1; Wilber v. Paine, 1 Ohio, 251; State v. Pugh, 43 Ohio St., 113; Lessee v. Corwin, 5 Ohio, 410; Harris v. State, 57 Ohio St., 92; sec. 26, art. 2, Const.; 23 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (1 ed.), 224; Sweet v. Syracuse, 129 N. Y., 316; Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, secs. 138, 363, 178 to 182; 1 Kent’s Commentaries, 447; Railroad v. Van Horn, 57 N. Y., 473; Roosevelt v. Godard, 52 Barb. (N. Y.), 533; 64 Am. St. Rep., 70, monographic note; Anderson v. Camden, 58 N. J. Law, 515; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat., 270; State ex rel. v. Crites, Auditor, 48 Ohio St., 142; State v. Hall, 25 O. C. C., 361; Douglass v. Pike County, 101 U. S., 677; Shoemaker v. Cincinnati, 68 Ohio St., 603; Silberman v. Hay, 59 Ohio St., 583; State v. Yates, 66 Ohio St., 546; State ex rel. v. Lewis, 12 O. D., 46; Gilbert v. Thomas, 16 O. D., 9; 26 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 568, 641; Norton v. Shelby Co., 118 U. S., 425; Boales v. Ferguson, 55 Neb., 565; Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 188; Bartlett v. State, 73 Ohio St., 54; 50 O. L. B., 536; 70 O. L. R., 24; 23 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (1 ed.), 225; State v. Tufley, 20 Nev., 427; State v. LaGrave, 62 Am. St. Rep., 768; 77 Am. St. Rep., 935; Widoe v. Webb, 20 Ohio St., 431; State v. Frame, 39 Ohio St., 399; Gager v. Prout, 48 Ohio St., 89; Pierce v. Board of Education, 8 O. D., 648; 1 N. P., 286; In re Brown, 9 Dec., 810; 6 N. P., 178; Squires v. Wiener, 10 Circ. Dec., 293; 19 R., 736; People v. Parks, 58 Cal., 624; Mathias v. Cramer, 73 Mich., 5; 19 Am. St. Rep., 275; Fisher v. McGirr, 1 Gray, 1; Brown v. Beatty, 34 Miss., 227; East Kingston v. Towle, 48 N. H., 57; Berry v. Railroad, 41 Md., 446; In re Groff, 21 Neb., 647; Turner v. Fish, 19 Nev., 295; State v. Estabrook, 3 Nev., 180; Evans v. Job, 8 Nev., 322; State v. Swift, 11 Nev., 147; secs. 1343a and 1343b, Rev. Stat. (1885); secs. 1343-1, 1343-2, 1343-3 and 1343-4, Rev. Stat. (1888).
    
      Messrs.' McMahon & McMahon; Messrs. Rowe é Shuey and Mr. Oscar M. Gottschall, for Phillip Gilbert, defendant in error (in case No. 9913),
    cited and commented upon the following authorities:
    
      Hixson v. Burson, 54 Ohio St., 470; State ex rel. v. Spellmire, 67 Ohio St., 77; State ex rel. v. Yates, 66 Ohio St., 546; State v. Lewis, 69 Ohio St., 202; Schumacher v. McCallip, 69 Ohio St., 500; sec. 26, art. 2, Const.; Menge et al. v. The Madrid, 40 Fed. Rep., 677; Commissioners v. Allman, 142 Ind., 573; Rumsey v. Railroad, 133 N. Y., 79; 26 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 184 (2 ed.), 5; Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S., 429; 47 O. L. B., 633, 891; Gager v. Prout, 48 Ohio St., 89; Bowles v. State, 37 Ohio St., 35; Cooley on Constitution, 178; Cooley on Constitutional Limitation (6 ed.), 211; State ex rel. v. Crites, 48 Ohio St., 142; State v. Commissioners, 5 Ohio St., 497; sec. 28, art. 2, Const.; Ireland v. Turnpike Co., 19 Ohio St., 369; Humphreys v. Safe Deposit Co., 29 Ohio St., 608; Bridge Co. v. Commissioners, 8 Dec. Re., 564; 9 W. L. B., 16; Sandheger v. Commissioners, 8 Dec. Re., 569; 9 W. L. B., 20; 
      State ex rel. v. Leivis, 8 Circ. Dec., 276; 15 C. C. R., 279; State v. Commissioners, 31 Ohio St., 271; Insurance Co. v. Cappellar, 38 Ohio St., 560; State ex rel. v. Raine, 47 Ohio St., 447; Commissioners v. Rosche Bros., 50 Ohio St., 103; S. & C., Revised Statutes, 1439; secs. 1038, 1343-1, 1343-2, 1343-3 and 1343-4, Rev. Stat. (1888); secs. 2731, 2734, 2800, 2803, 2804, 2805, 2813, 2815 and 2819-1, Rev. Stat.
    By leave of the court, briefs were filed in support of the validity of the contracts by Mr. J. T. Holmes and Messrs. Dyer, Williams & Stouffer, and against their validity by Mr. E. N. Huggins; Messrs. West & West and Mr. Fred C. Rector. An oral argument against the validity of the contracts was also made by Mr. Andrew Squire.
    
   Shauck, O. J.,

By allegations of fact in the pleadings, and by propositions of law in numerous briefs and in oral arguments, we are favored with a full and clear presentation of the considerations affecting the validity of the contracts for the employment of tax inquisitors in Hamilton and Montgomery counties. Those considerations conducted the superior court of Cincinnati to the conclusion that the contracts are valid, and the circuit court of Montgomery county to the conclusion that they are void. It will not be practicable, perhaps it would not be profitable, to attend to all those considerations in detail. The points of inquiry may be reached by the observation that there appear to be no substantial doubts respecting the validity of the contracts except those which concern the constitutional validity of the statutes by which the contracts are supposed to be authorized. These statutes are given in full in the statement of the cases.

From a comprehensive view of these statutes and' other statutes relating to the taxation of property, it appears to he true, as is urged against the validity of the contracts, that the legislative policy is to charge auditors and assessors with the duty of bringing all taxable property upon the duplicates, vesting them with ample power for that purpose, and providing for their liberal compensation for services so rendered to the public; and then by this particular legislation to offer inducements to remissness in the performance of those duties in order that there may be realized the extraordinary compensation of the inquisitors. This tendency of the acts of 1885 and 1888 is so obvious that it could hardly have escaped the attention of the legislature even before there had been opportunity to observe their practical operation. That it did not escape attention appears in the provisions of sections 13435 and 1343-2, proposing the possibility of criminal proceedings to check the cupidity excited. But the admission that the wisdom of this reliance has not been vindicated by prosecutions for such remissness will not justify the conclusion that any part of the legislation is void. It must have been solely in view of this aspect of the case that counsel for the inquisitors have so gravely admonished us that we must not, by annulling an act of the legislature, defeat the will of the people. These acts involve the exercise of no power that is not legislative, and, however unwise they may appear to be, they must be held valid, unless they are violative of some limitation which the people have imposed upon the exercise of that power. Constitutions not only locate the powers of government, but in important respects they peremptorily prescribe the modes of their exercise. More than a century has passed since Marbury v. Madison, and it would not now he decorous to counsel to assume that they either urge or entertain the view that the will of the people is expressed in acts of legislation which are passed in disregard of limitations which the people have expressly imposed upon their representatives who exercise their legislative power.

In support of the judgment of the circuit court of Montgomery county it is urged that the acts of 1885 and 1888 are alike violative of the provision' of section 26 of article 2 of the constitution that “all laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation throughout the state.” In support of the judgment of the superior court of Cincinnati it is said that the act of 1888 is reconcilable with that provision of the constitution and that it, without aid from the act of 1885, authorizes the contracts whose validity is drawn in question. That taxation as the subject of legislation is of a general nature is established by a uniform course of decisions, and it is practically admitted in the present cases. The act of 1885, by its terms, is operative in but four counties of the state including Hamilton, and the contention of counsel for the inquisitors is that because of its limited operation it was and is a nullity and not now to be taken into account in the consideration of existing legislation upon the subject. The precise question is, does the act of 1888 operate uniformly throughout the state? By the terms of the first section of the act (R. S., sec. 1343-1), leaving out of view the provisions of the last section (R. S., sec. 1343-4), the officers of any county when they have reason to believe that there has not been a full return of property for taxation are empowered to contract for the services of an inquisitor. But the operation of the act was not left to the comprehensive terms of its first section. By its fourth section the act of 1885 was brought before the minds of the legislators to be dealt with as an act relating to the same subject matter. How did they deal with it? Certainly not in the mode which would have been most .usual and natural if the later act was intended to be the sole law upon the subject, that is, by the express repeal of the former act which, if continued in force, would prevent the operation of the later act throughout the state. Not only did the legislature not expressly repeal the earlier act, but care was taken, and apt language was chosen, to prevent the application to it of the legal rules with respect to repeals by implication. Could we regard ourselves as really attempting . interpretation if we should conclude that the legislature intended to nullify the former act by providing that it should not in any manner be affected? The suggestion that the general assembly knew that the former act was void because of its limited operation, and that the words by which it was saved are, therefore, regarded as meaningless, is inadmissible, for it would be an imputation of ethical obliquity. It is both just and decorous to assume that in both enactments the members of the legislature regarded themselves as performing duties enjoined upon them by the constitution and by their oaths to support that instrument. If the meaning of the legislature is sought where it should always be sought, in the words which it employs, and if the subject is regarded with a steady vision, it will not appear otherwise than that the concurrent operation of both acts was intended.

For the purpose of the present case at least it may be conceded that, since all acts relating to the same subject matter are to. be considered together, acts authorizing the employment of tax inquisitors do, according to their terms, operate throughout the state. But the requirement of the constitution is not merely of operation, but of uniform operation throughout the state. Regarding the differences in the conditions to official action and more especially the presence of the limitation upon the compensation of the inquisitors in one and the absence of such limitation from the other, it is obvious that the concurrent operation of these acts would not be uniform. There appears to be no reason to doubt that the provisions respecting compensation held a prominent place in the minds of “the people” who prompted this legislation. Counsel for the inquisitors naturally call State ex rel. v. Crites, 48 Ohio St., 143, to our attention. It is true that in that case the act of 1888 was, as against objections there considered, held to be constitutional, and it was treated as valid legislation for the purpose of the judgment in that ease. But the considerations which conduct us to the conclusion that the act is void do not appear to have been in the minds of the court in that case. • To regard a case as authority upon questions which are not considered tends to the expulsion of reason from the law. One attempting to reconcile this legislation with the constitutional requirement here considered would find nothing of support in the case cited. He would find much adverse doctrine in both earlier and more recent cases dependent upon the consideration and effect of these sections of the constitution. Moreover State v. Crites has not become a rule of property for the present case. Since there is no law operating uniformly throughout the ' state authorizing contracts with tax inquisitors, there is none which operates anywhere.

In State ex rel. Wilson v. Lewis, the judgment of the superior court of Cincinnati is-

Reversed.

In Thomas v. State ex rel. Gilbert, the judgment of the circuit court of Montgomery county is

Affirmed.

Price, ■ Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur. " ¡  