Argument for State.

ful purpose authorized by the Constitution and laws of this state.

Is this investigation a legislative act? The purpose of this investigation, as shown in the resolution, is to inquire into the truth or falsity of the charges of law-breaking among public officers and others in the city of Cincinnati and county of Hamilton. The committee is directed to make full inquiry into these charges and to report to the Legislature in order that the law-making body of the state may be able to make such amendments in the existing laws and enact, if necessary, such new laws as may protect the people of Cincinnati and Hamilton county and other cities and counties from like alleged abuses and impositions in the future. It will be seen that the work designated to be done is to ferret out and expose crimes in order that laws may be enacted to prevent the commission of similar offenses hereafter. The question, therefore, is, whether or not the discovery of the violation of existing laws, even though the purpose of this discovery is asserted by the General Assembly to be that new laws may be enacted, is a proper service to be performed by the Legislature or is a duty devolved upon the

courts.

But the necessity of this investigation in Hamilton county is put upon a broader ground by the resolution of the Senate. It is proposed as a proper subject of legislative action because the citizens of Hamilton county, through their Senators and Representatives, assert that for good and sufficient reasons the people of said county can not of their own accord, and with the means provided by the present laws of the state, make

Argument for State.

and conduct an investigation of the matters and things referred to in said resolution so as to fully accomplish the results desired.

If it be true that the people of Hamilton county are unable to enforce the law and unable to secure the conviction and punishment of those who violate it, that inability must result from one of two

causes:

First.

There must be insufficient jurisdiction. in the local courts, or limitations upon their methods of procedure which render them impotent to enforce the laws of the state. If this is the explanation of the appeal of the citizens of that county to the state to ascertain the truth or falsity of charges of corruption in government, it may be suggested that this appeal should be met, not by a legislative committee to apprehend the guilty, but by the passage of laws broadening the jurisdiction or improving the methods of procedure of the courts properly vested with the determination of these questions.

Second. There must be inefficiency or dishonesty in the judiciary of the county and city in question. If this be true, it may be suggested that under the Constitution this is an evil to be corrected, not by an investigation of the charges. of crime, but by an impeachment of the courts under the constitutional and statutory provisions. In other words, if the judicial tribunals are unable or unwilling to enforce the law, their powers should be increased in the one case or their offices should be forfeited in the other.

In determining whether or not the facts disclosed by the committee authorized to make this investigation can be properly used by the General

Argument for State.

Assembly as a basis for remedial legislation, and therefore whether such investigation has been instituted for that purpose, the court must examine all the circumstances surrounding this case as disclosed by the record. Manifestly all the laws on the subject of the organization of cities or counties, or defining or punishing crime, are in their nature subjects of general, and not of special or local, interest. If a condition of affairs were discovered in Hamilton county which called for new legislation, that legislation could not, under our Constitution, be enacted for the sole purpose of meeting such conditions. It could be passed only because of the existence of like conditions elsewhere in the state, and it could be upheld only on the ground that it was of general benefit and not of special advantage to one community. Nor could one community be lawfully taxed to pay the expenses of securing the information upon which such legislation was based. Whether or not in the case at bar the Legislature has given a construction to Senate Resolution No. 23, and has indicated that the purpose of the remedial legislation proposed is for the benefit of one county alone depends upon the interpretation which the court may give to an act of the General Assembly passed at the same session in which said resolution was adopted, which act provides that the county of Hamilton shall repay to the state of Ohio so much of the appropriation for the contingent fund of the Senate as may be expended by the "Drake Committee."

In the determination of this question as to whether or not the investigation here proposed may properly be made the subject of legislation,

Argument for State.

the court may further consider whether such remedial legislation should rest upon facts discovered in the opinion of a legislative committee or upon an adjudication by the courts of law. In other words, if the Legislature is to base legislative action on the question of whether certain public officers or others have violated the law, may this basis be the result of a legislative inquiry, conducted without the formalities, safeguards and adversary methods of a public trial, where the accused is confronted with the witnesses against him and is given an opportunity to be represented by counsel and to make his defense; or can the Legislature be said to intend an investigation for legislative purposes when it declares in the resolution authorizing the investigation, that whether or not remedial legislation will be enacted will depend upon the truth or falsity, the guilt or innocence of certain persons publicly charged with having violated the law, and submits that question, not to the courts, not to a plaintiff and defendant proceeding, but to an ex parte inquiry by a committee appointed for that purpose.

Without stopping to argue whether the Legislature and each branch thereof are, under the general provisions of the Ohio Constitution, strictly limited to legislative duties, with the exceptions specifically set forth in the Constitution, to-wit, the decision of contested election cases, the trial of impeachments, the maintenance of order and the determination of the qualifications of its members, it may well be pointed out that it is as incumbent upon the Legislature to look to the judiciary for the final guilt or innocence of given individuals, and to accept that

Opinion of the Court.

judgment, as it is incumbent upon the judiciary to look to and accept the conclusions of the Legislature as to the wisdom of the enactment of laws regulating the procedure of the courts.

It is finally submitted that the voucher in question in this case will require the court to consider the validity of all of the Senate Resolution No. 23, and the whole authority sought to be conferred upon the special committee. The principal item in that voucher is for rent of a room, which, as alleged in the petition, was used for two months by the committee in the performance of its duties. It is not alleged that that room was used only for the exercise by the committee of such powers as might be lawfully entrusted to it, but that it was used in the exercise of all the powers and the doing of all the things required to be done by said committee. It seems, therefore, that in this case the question is fairly presented, first, to the state auditor, and now to this court, whether the committee was legally authorized to do all the things set forth in that resolution; to make all the investigation; to determine as to the truth or falsity of any or all charges set forth in said resolution; to make findings of guilt or innocence upon such charges, and to report said findings to the General Assembly.

DAVIS, J. This case fairly involves an issue as to the legal existence of the select investigating committee which was appointed by a resolution of the Senate. The auditor of state is made the chief accounting officer of the state and no money can lawfully be drawn out of the treasury except upon