Opinion
No. 84-574
Decided July 3, 1984.
Counties — Industrial development revenue bonds — Bonds may be issued for agricultural purposes — "Farming" is "industry" or "commerce" — Section 13, Article VIII, Constitution, and R.C. 165.01(H), construed.
IN MANDAMUS.
Relator, Richard L. Jackson, is a resident of Preble County engaged in the business of farming. He currently raises corn and soybeans and operates a dairy. Jackson proposes to expand his business to include a hay farming operation. In order to finance the buildings and equipment needed to establish the hay farm, Jackson applied to the Board of County Commissioners for Preble County ("board"), relator herein, for an industrial development loan.
On April 9, 1984, the board adopted Resolution No. 207-84-50 authorizing the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds in the amount of $200,000 to Jackson for the purpose of financing his hay farming operation under authority of Section 13, Article VIII, Ohio Constitution and R.C. Chapter 165.
All steps have been taken for the issuance of the bonds except that respondent, Betty Mong, the Auditor for Preble County, has refused to sign and affix her seal to the bonds. Respondent's refusal to sign the bonds is based upon her concern that Section 13, Article VIII, Ohio Constitution and R.C. Chapter 165 do not authorize the issuance of bonds for agricultural purposes.
Relators then brought this action in mandamus seeking the issuance of a writ to compel respondent to sign the bonds. The Office of the Attorney General and the Ohio Department of Agriculture were granted leave to file a brief as amici curiae.
Mr. Wilfrid G. Dues, prosecuting attorney, Messrs. Jones, Day, Reavis Pogue, Mr. James E. Young and Mr. William J. Blake, for relators.
Messrs. Pickrel, Schaeffer Ebeling, Mr. Alan B. Schaeffer and Mr. Andrew C. Storar, for respondents.
Mr. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Mr. Joseph C. Sommer, urging allowance of the writ, for amici curiae.
Section 13, Article VIII, Ohio Constitution and R.C. Chapter 165 authorize the state and its governmental subdivisions to make loans and issue bonds to finance qualifying projects for "industry, commerce, distribution, and research." The sole issue raised in this action is whether farming is "industry" or "commerce" within the meaning of these provisions.
In deciding that it is, we note first that respondent has offered no authority to the contrary. We recognize, as urged by the amici, that farming is an essential element of Ohio's economy. As such, it readily fits within generally accepted definitions of "commerce" and "industry" — commerce being the buying and selling of goods, and industry, the commercial production of goods. See The American Heritage Dictionary (1979) 266, 672; Webster's New World Dictionary (2 Ed. 1982) 285, 719.
Moreover, in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), 317 U.S. 111, the United States Supreme Court found it unnecessary to inquire whether farming was "commerce," when it upheld the imposition of quotas on wheat production as a proper exercise under the Commerce Clause.
We think the inclusion of farming within the purview of Section 13, Article VIII, Ohio Constitution fosters the purpose of that provision to "improve the economic welfare of the people of the state."
Accordingly, the writ prayed for is allowed.
Writ allowed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.