350 STATE EX REL. RICHARDSON V. MACK. [191
STATE EX REL. RICHARDSON V..MACK. 4-3961
Opinion delivered September 30, 1935. 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—JUD1CIAL AUTHORITY.—Courts do not hold statutes unconstitutional where any reasonable construction may save the statute from unconstitutionality. 2. CONVICTS—WORK OF COUNTY PRISONERS.—Crawford & Moses' Dig., § 2082, providing that, if no contract should be made by the county court for work of county prisoners by a certain date, the county court must make an order providing for working such prisoners on public improvements of the county, held directory
ARK.] .STATE EX REL. RICHARDSON V. MACK. 351 and not • mandatory, and therefore not in conflict with Const., art. 7, § 28. Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; S. M. Bone, Judge ; affirmed. Roy Richardson and Howard Hasting, for Appellant. Fred M. Pickens, for appellee. MOHANEY, J. Appellant brought this action for .mandamus against appellee as county jndge of Jackson County to_ Compel the appellee to make an order under § 2082, Crawford & Moses' Digest, providing for the working of county convicts upon roads, bridges, and other public improvements of the county. Appellee responded denying that appellant was entitled to the writ because the sections of the statute relied on were not mandatory upon him as county judge, but directory merely ; that the matter of working .the county convicts on the county roads, etc., is a matter resting within his discretion . as county judge and not subject to be controlled by mandamus ; that § 28, art. 7, of the Constitution vested .in him as county judge exclusive and original jurisdiction in all matters relating to 'county roads, bridges,. etc., and that the Legislature had no authority under the Constitution to invade the prerogative of the county court, and that the petition seeks to violate said section of the Constitution. The court sustained appellee's response and denied the petition. . In so holding we think the . learned trial court. was correct. Section 2081, Crawford & Moses' Digest, relates to the employment of county convict labor, and provides that, in case the county court or the judge is unable to Make a contract with any person in the county for the work of its prisoners, as provided in § 2060, "the court or judge thereof may contract for the work of its prisoners with some person in some other , county of the State according to the provisions of this act ; and if the county court or judge thereof be unable to make a. satisfactory contract with some person of some other county, then the cdunty court or judge thereof may order the prisoners to be worked on the public roads," etc. Section 2082 provides : "In the event that the county court or judge there-
.352 -STATE EX REL. RICHARDSON V. MACK. [191 .of shall order the prisoners to be worked on the roads," etc., as provided in the preceding section, he shall do certain things therein: set out; and . the last clauso in that section reads as follows : "And in case no eontract ,as providedin §§ 2060 and 2081 is made by , the copnty court or judge thereof prior to tbe second . Monday of Janu-ary of. any year, .then the said court . or judge thereof must Make the. order, as provided'in § 2081 for working the prisoners on the' public roads; bridges, levees and other public improvements of the county:" If is . apPellant's , contentiOrt that, because , of the iiSe 'of the word 'must' in the sentence la . st 'quoted, the connty judge thereof is Mandatorily bound to do so. ThiS is the onlY where the statnte appears to *attempt to make it .iMperdtiVe for a connty coUrt or judge to .make the order t"(:, work the eouuf3i prisoners oh , the 'roads', etc., of the county, hild'we. are constrained to believe that the Legis-bitnre did . not,' sO intend' it... We are further COnstrained to , this "view . b\ the hinguage Used. in . § 28 of aitt. .7 . of the 'COnstitiitiOn, Which Confer's exclusive orikinal juHsdi& fidn on cotifiVeouits all . matters rebiting • -b p county roads, 'bridges,' ferrieS, etc., "and in ei.jéi.y. other 'Oa's'e that .rnity be' neceSary, to :the Miernal imProvement 'and " local Concerns the . yeSpective connties." We do. hot 'hold that said ';). 2082 iS in' violation-of the Constitution because courts do not bold statutes to be uncOnstitittional where any reasonable construction may be res'orted to hi order to . sa!ve the statute 'from unconstitutionality. Standard Oil. Co. of Louisidna• v: Brodie; 153 krk. 114, 239 S. W. -753; , Bush v.•MaHineau, 174 Ark. 214; i295 S. W. 9. • :Since the language of the statutes under. consideta-tion. several times loft it to the discretion of the county court as to what disposition he would make of the county convicts, we must hold that the language quoted in . §, 2082 is . directory merely and not mandatory. It is true that the quorum court of Jackson County made an appropriation -in the sum of. $2,000 to pay. the expenses of work--ing the. county convicts on the. roads, etc., but this conld not have tbe effect of- taking away the jurisdiction of the county court in such matters. It follows from what
ARK.] 353 we have said that the judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.