The daily Cairo bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1878-1???, 1880-03-27

of the council. They in no other manner
could be the Judge of the election OF the
members of that body. If this be true,
then there is another mode provided for the
contest of the election of this officer, than
by the county court, and il 30, then by the
express terms of the statute 1t can take no
jurisdiction IN this case.
The constitution Of the United States
and OF the various states Of the Union 1t is
believed have provisions that each house
shall be the Judge of the election and quail
ifcation of its members, and we are aware
of no case where it has been held that the
courts may determine the election and
qualifications of the members of either
house where such constitutional pro-
vision exists. On the contrary, it has been
the uniform practice for each house of CON
press and of the various states, to hear and
decide contested seats, and we can have no
doubt, that the general assembly intended
to confer on city councils the same power
in cases of contests for seats in the council.
1t may be urged that because the legisla-
ture has not particularly specified the man
| ner in which the council shall
proceed, that therefore no pro
vision has been made Tor this office.
We think the objection has no weight. 1t
has made provision, as we have seen, that
it shall be determined by the city council.
Suppose the section had in specific terms
provided that such contests should be heard
and determined by the city council, would
| anyone have doubted that other provision
had been made tor such contests. And
vet we do not see, that in substance and
effect these provisions are not equally
broad and comprehensive. To our minds,
there is no doubt that the city council
has full and complete jurisdiction to decide
this contest and the county court has ne
such jurisdiction.
But reference is made to section 81 of
the general Incorporation law OF cities,
villages and towns. Or. S. P. I'D That
section provides that: "The man.
ner of conducting and voting at
elections, to be held under
that act, and the contesting the same, the
keeping of poll lists and canvassing the
votes, shall be the same, as
nearly as may be, as IN
the case of the election OF county
officers, under thegeneral laws ofthis state"
Here we have the manner prescribed by
the general law. Section 1l3 of
which provides that the person desiring
to contest, shall within thirty days after
the person is declared elected, file with the
clerk of the proper court q statement in
writing setting forth the points on which
he will contest the election, which state
ment shall be verified by affidavit, etc. The
Hath section provides that summons shall
issue to the person whose Office shall be
contested, or he shall be notified to appear
and the lis section requires the evidence to
be taken in the same manner and on like
notice, as in cases in chancery, and the case
shall be tried in like manner as cases in
chancery. These sections point out the
mode and we can see no great incon-
venience by a few slight changes in render
ing it entirely practicable for the city coun-
eli to try such contest. The city council
are certainly as we'll adapted to try such
contest, as were those justices of the peace
to determine such contests as to county
officers, under previous laws. (See r. 5.
1845 P. 222 Sec. 40, etc. Hence we have
a provision that the city council shall deter
nine such cases and the manner prescribed.
We are referred to the case Of Young vs..
Adam, "A III. $50, as having bearing on
this case That was contest as to which
Of two persons was elected to the
Office of alderman, in one of the
wards OF the city of Joliet. The city was
organized under a special charter. That
case was based on Brush VS.. Lemma, u
Ills, 496.
In this latter case it was held that the
general law providing for the contest of the
election of county officers by the 0Sth sec
ton, did not embrace the Office Of the
mayor of city. That it only embraced
Offices of the same class or grades. That
the Office Of mayor is not Of the same class
or grade as those enumerated in the first
branch of the section. The 57th section of
the general law for the incorporation of
cities, villages, etc, was referred to- and it
was said, that this evidently referred to
cities and villages organized under the gen
eral law. And it not appearing that the
city of Carbondale was acting under the
general law that section had no applica
ton BY inference it was held that had
that fact appeared, then the 9th section
would have given the county court jurisdic-
ton of the case.
In Young VS.. Adam SUPRA although it
related 10 the Office of alderman, the court
held as the city was acting under special
charter that it was not embraced in the
provisions OF the 0Sth section OF the cleo
ton law. 1t was said that the case was
governed by Brush VS.. Lemma and this is
true, because the 9Sth section of the cleo
ton law does not as there said embrace the
office of mayor, but the 57th section of the
law to incorporate cities and villages does.
II was therefore by force Of this latter sec
ton, that the county court acquired juris-
dictioh in case Of contest for the Office of
mayor 1t was unnecessary to have refer
red to the fact that the city OF Joliet was
acting under special charter, as the result
would have been the same had it been I'M
der the general incorporation law. The de-
cision was correct under the case of Brush
vs. Lemma, but not Tor that reason. The
confusion or uncertainty, if any exists,