446 PEDEBAIi BEI'ORTBB. �ing grist-mills, for the purpose of supplj'ing the public with f ood, then there would be no good reason why aid could net alsobevoted to a steam grist-mill. To develop the water- power would simply be to fumish the motive power to do the business in question. The object to be gained in such case is to furnish facilities for grinding grain for the use and ben- efit of the interested public. This being true, there would seem to be no good reason why aid could not be voted, under the Kansas law, to aid in the erection of a steatd grist-mill. The object to be gained would be precisely the same in either case; that is, the furnishing of motive power to propel the necessary machinery would accomplish the identical purpose and produce the same resuit. And I apprehend it is because of this reason, the simUarity of results, that brought about the decision in the Kansas case. Thus, bonds could be Toted to develop the water-power for the purpose stated. This authority is given in express terms. "Other works of internai improvement," in the language of the law, may all receive public aid. A water grist-mill and a steam grist-mill are similar in many respects ; in fact, in almost every respect except in the motive powe^r. Both are operated for the same purpose, and both accomplish the same results. So, when a water-mill can be aided under the specifie clause in the law, a steam-mill may be aided under the general clause giving the right to aid "other works of internai improvement," for the manifest reason that it, the steam-mill, is similar to the water-mill speeially authorized, and falls within the principle of construction hereinbefore stated. There is, then, no in- consistency between the decision of the supreme court in the Kansas case, and the conclusions reached in the present case. �The demurrer must be sustained. �I am authorized to say that Judge MoGbabi conours in this l'udgment. ��� �
