OSBOBNE V. COtJNTI C0MMI8SI0NBRS OF ADAMS 00. 44:6 �ture when the said law was enacted. In giving the law this construction we do no violence to language or principle. So faras known, no court in this.state bas gone beyondthe prin- ciple of construction here applied. It bas been held in sev- eral cases that the right to erect publie buildings, such as jails and court-bouses, derives no support from the law before cited. See U. P. R. v. Lincoln Go. 3 Dill. 300 ; Dawson Co. V. McNamar, 10 Neb. 276; Lewis v. Sherman Co., decided at the present term of court.* And this seems to be the settled law in this state. Yet in some of the authorities outside of the state, court-bouses and jails are held to be "internai im- provements" to which public aid may be voted under laws similar to our own. But the statute law, in every case where the voting of bonds is specially authorized, is essentially dif- ferent from the one under consideration. But it is claimed tbat the case of Township of Burlington v. Beasley, 94 U. S. 310, decided by the supreme court of the United States, is also decisive of the controversy involved in this suit. I think otherwise. Applying the sarhe principle to both cases, we would arrive at the same conclusion reached in either. The case last referred to originated under the internai improve- ■ment law of the state of Kansas. That law especially author- izes "counties, incorporated cities, and municipal townships to issue boiids for the purpose of building bridges, aiding in the construction of railroads, water-power, and other works of internai improvement. " The Kansas law is much more comprehensive and liberal than the law of this state. It au- thorizes the voting of aid for specifie purposes where our law is silent. It confers ample authority for certain purposes, while our law witbholds it. �Authority is given to aid in developing water-power in Kan- sas, but in this state the legislature bas withbeld the right so to do. And, so far as knowh, no one bas, until recently, seriously claimed that such a doubtful authority could be rightfully exercised under the provisions of existing law. �If the law in this state, as in Kansas, had authorized the voting of bonds to aid in developing water-power and build-
- See this case fully reported in 5 Fbd. Rep. 2C9.
��� �
