Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1881-06-23
Copy.
LAH TON AND kOOTNAI.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE.

hon. Geo. Is. F0nndc0ff, Cfpur a
Aiene, l. 4:
DEAR SIR II have the honor to &C.
knowledge the receipt Of your commu.
nication Of the 10th inst, inclosing
copy of the proceedings of the Board
of Commissioners, appointed b. my
predecessor, to organize the county Of
Lab Toh, in accordance with the pro-
visions of an Act creating the counties
of Lab Toh and kootenai, approved
Dec, %, 1864.
have carfully considered the state
ments contained in your communica-
ton, desiring most earnestly to aid you
to the full extent of my authority, in
organizing and establishing the county
of Lab Toh. But after thorough ex-
animation of the legislation relating to
this matter, am reluctantly forced to
the conclusion that there is no warrant
of law for the organization of the coun-
ty of Lab Toh, and was not at the
time Governor. Brayman appointed
Messrs. Garfield, Rankin and Martin,
commissioners, under the Sd section of
the Act of Dec. %, 1864, so much of
said Act as created the county of Lab
Toh, having been repealed by the Act
approved January 9, 1867, entitled an
Act to amend an Act, entitled can Act
defining the boundary lines Of counties
west of the Rocky Mountains" repeal
ing the lap creating the county of Lah
7oh, and defining the limits of the
county of Kootenai" That Governor
Brayman acted in ignorance of this lat
ter Act, l am well aware, having con-
suited with him upon the subject in
connection with the proceedings of the
Board of Apportionment for members
of the Legislative Assembly, which
met in this city in August last. The
question was raised in the Board as to
the status of Lab Toh county, and it
was decided after due consideration
that Gov. Brayman's action was legal,
and the existence of the county was re-
organized by giving it member of the
council jointly with Nez Perce and
Shoshone, and member Of the House
with Shoshone. But the Board also
acted in ignorance of the Act of Jan.
8, 1867. / will state in this connec-
tion that the question also came up as
to whether the Act Of Dec %, 1864,
was repealed by sections 3 and 4, page
$40 Correct No. 872). Revised laws
of Idaho 1t was held that those sec
tions did not repeal the law. This
conclusion was based upon the we'll es-
tablished principal Of law that the leg
islative power cannot be delegated. So
much of said law then, as has not been
repealed by the legislative power, still
remain in force, for the mere omission
of the Revisory Commission to print
the Act in the volumn, does not oper-
ate to repeal it. The same principle
holds good as to the Act of January
9, 1867, no part of either is repealed
by the above mentioned sections, un-
less previously repealed by direct leg
islation. The wcrk of the Commis.
sion was very imperfectly and bun
glingy done. Many wise and neces-
sary provisions of the laws, which had
not been repealed ny the legislative
power were omitted from the volumn
of revised laws. It would be abensed
to hold that clerical errors and blunders
could have the full force and effect of
law
Our courts have held as above when
ever and wherever the question has
been raised If this doctrine is cor
rect-and the opposite could not he
allowed to prevail without great injury
to the Territory-your fear that you
have been "relega'ed back into sort
of Independent sovereignty" is not well
founded. So much of section OF the
Act of Dec. %, 1864, as is not in con-
sistent with the Act of January 1867,
is still in force, attaching you to the
lst Judicial District, for Judicial pur-
poses," and to Nez Perce county for
"all civil and criminal Jurisprudence, ;"
provided, Of course, my views as to
your present legal status are correct
Whether the term for "all civil and
criminal jurisprudence" includes for
all purposes is question. I am not
Il.