The Ottawa free trader., 1881-07-16
ELECTION OF COUNTY OFFICERS

Wy ''"SN''
ELECTION OF COUNTY OFFICERS,
We print on our inside form to-day a com
municaton from Judge Leland, giving his
views on the question that has arisen in re-
gard to the constitu,ionality Of the law Of the
last legislature repeating so much Of the elCc.
ton laws of this state as provided for an cltc.
ton of certain county officers this fall, and
providing for their election, IN conformity
with the recently adopted amendment Of the
constitution, next tall. Judge Leland lavors
the idea that this enactment is As constitution.
al rs 1t is eminently necessary and proper and
that as a result the present county officers,
whose terms according to the constitution be-
fore It's amendment expired this fall, will hold
over until next year under that other constltg-
tional provision which authorizes them to hold
until their successors are elected and qualified.
Per contra, we find in the Strcator Free
Press another letter from Attorney General
Mccartney, who maintains that the repeal Of the
law providing for an election of county officers
this fall was unconstitutional, and that the
election under the repealed law must be held
as usual What is to become OF these officers
to be elected in 1891 with terms fixed by the
constitution at two and four years, after the
election of their successors under the amended
constitution in 1892, Is one Of those things
which Mr.. Mccartney seems to think "no fcl
lab can find OUT" at least he says he Is mot
prepared" to offer any solution of the knotty
conundrum. While he IS very certain that the
trainers of the amendment did not mean that
the officers whose terms under the un&mcnded
constitution expire in 1881 should hold over
until the election they provided for IN 1882, or
they would have said so, he has no suggestion
to offer in regard to the still greater neglect OF
the trainers Of the amendment in falling to dc.
fine what Is to become of the officers elected
for two and four years IN 1881 while providing
for supersedng them in 1882 While we are
not, in the view of Mr.. McCartncy allowed to
insist that the lawmakers were guilty Of care
lessness or committing an absurdity IN the one
case, he is quite ready TO maintain that they
were thus guilty in the other case.
In short, Mr., Mccartney rests his case on
but the single point, that although the amend
ment to the constitution was voted tor in 1880
and officially declared to be adopted and IN
force Ia January, 1881, it did not really go in.
to effect until November 1882, because it says
that "on the first Tuesday after the first Mon
day IN November 1882, an election shall be
held" &c. This is absurd on the face OF it,
The constitution declares that all amendments
made shall 60 into effect and be in force from
and after the date of the official announce
ment of their adoption. The case then stands
thus: The old constitutional provision said
that county clerks, treasurers, &c, shall be
elected for two and four years in 1881 The
amendment said they shall be elected for four
years IN 1882, and made no provisions for the
hiatus of one year of the terms of the officers
to expire under the old constitutional provis.
ion IN 1881 and for the plain and common
sense reason, that no such provision was nee
essary, because the exigency was provided for
by another constitutional provision, then and
still in force, that those officers should hold
until their successors were elected and quail
fed
This was the view the able committee of
lawyers of the legislature took of the subject
when they framed the amendment to the cleo
ton law which they found inconsistent with
the new constitutional provision and made it
conform to it, and is the view taken of the
subject in a recent letter by Gov. Cullom, who,
we venture the bold suggestion, is quite as able
and well posted a lawyer as his subordinate
official, the doughty Attorney General Nc.
Cartney.