Weekly Trinity journal., 1879-12-06
A MOOTED QUESTION.

ltWlil doubtless be remem Dered tnala
opponents of the New Constitution, prior
to its adoption, urged strenuously the
ambiguity of language in many of its pro-
visions as one good reason why that docs
ument should not be made the furdament-
al law of the State. Its supporters, on
the other hand, were equally positive that
no such double meaning existed in any
instance and that the New Constitution
in all its provisions was the most plain
and comprehensive document ever pro-
mulgated and for that reason alone should
be adopted. A majority Of voters took the
latter view and adopted the new instru>
ment which is now the fundamental law
and supported alike by all good citizens
so far as they can agree upon the true in
tent and meaning of its provisions. But
even thus early, before all o: its provis-
ions are pot in force, several of the sec,
tions have been given various interpreta-
tions by high authority. Notably is this
the fact with those provisions bearing up
pie have the most direct interest, and
more particularly as to the time when the
new officers elect shall assume the func>
! tions Of the positions to which they have
been chosen. Hon. 10 Hamilton the
present Attorney General and law officer
of the State gave his opinion some time
ago, and recently re- iterated the same
views, that o! al the county officers elect
the Superintendent of Schools and Super
ior Judges were the only ones who took
office on the first Monday in January,
they alone being expressly provided for in
the New Constitution. The "eIectior or
appoip tment" of all other county officers
being left TO Legislative action, together
with the terms of such officers, Hamilton
is decided in his view that the present
Sherffs, Clerks "A SCISSORS, and other coun-
ty Officials must hold until March, or for
the term to which they were originally
chosen the Legislature not having con-
vened. Hon. A. l.. Hart, Attorney Cen
eral elect, in late communication holds
opinions directly opposite TO the above
and is certain that all present officers 60
out and the new ones go in on the first
Monday in January, 1880. Other emf
nent jursts throughout the State are 6i-
vided in their views on the matter, and
what makes it more complicated is the fact
that there seems TO be no clear way out Of
the dilemma. "Send an agreed case to
the Supreme Court" says one but opin-
ions differ as to whether the ont going or
incoming Court would lie the proper one
to decide What is TO be or will be done
in the matter no one knows, although it
is generally supposed that the old officers
will hold on as long as they can. The
whole snarl, which seems so dfficult Of
unraveling, is evidently the plain result Of
0n absence OF "A common understanding
Of the English language on the part of the
late Constitutional Convention. We
doubt not that that body really intended
a new deal all round and that an entirely
new set of officers, from Constable to
Governor, should assume control on the
first Monday in January, 1880. Why
they did not say so in plan,words may be
ascribed either to carolessness, ignorance
or an intent to confuse. This ambiguity
Of language is by no means confined to
the sections bearing on the question now
at ISSUE but its like will be found through
out the document, and it is exceedingly
doubtful if any of the $4,000 voters who
favored the New Constitution or the 79,-
900 who opposed it will be blessed with
sufficiently long lease Of life to see lis CON
1icting provisions satisfactorily adjusted,
or tho Courts and tho people agreed upon
what idea many ports Of that remarkable
document were ever intended to convey.
1t was badly mixed mess in the begin
ming and will continue such while it has
an existence.