Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-01-01
WHO Shall BE MUNICIPAL JUDGE.

The question, ''Who shall be judge of
the municipal court?" will soon present
itself before the public and the law. 1t
would be shame to the judicial depart
ment of the city government of st. Paul
to let that question pass unanswered. If
nothing else is considered, the late rum
pus about the present incumbent will in
dictate that the office is one of much i'm
portance.
The fact that there are certain claim
ants of that position who expect to be
seated on the first of the new year, re-
fleets more upon their knowledge Of the
law concerning that office, and
their fitness for the position,
than it does in favor
{ any right they may think they have
to be there. No straight and unpreju-
diced person, capable of constructing any
common, plain legal proposition, can
hesitate about the conclusion that the
pretended election of an incumbent, last
spring, by few unheralded votes, or by
the greater blunder of last autumn, was
altogether unauthorized and illegal. The
act of March l, 1876, which is amendatory
of certain acts, expressly provides in Sec
ton three, that, among the enumerated
city officers, the municipal judge shall
be elected at the city May election, Sec
ton eleven, without saying that
it is amendatory of anything
or proviso to anything
preceding it ,superhuously provides that
the incumbents of the offices of munci-
pal and special judges shall hold for the
terms for which they were elected, and
then, especially for special purposes, that
their successor shall be elected; to-wit:
The successor of tie municipal Judge,
at the general election in November,
1876. and the successors of the two
special judges at the November election
in 1873.
Whether this section is constitutional
under section twenty seven, article four,
of that much tortured instrument called
the constitution of Minnesota, which
provides that ''no law shall embrace
more than one subject, which shall be
expressed in its title,'' may be somewhat
questionable in point of strict construc-
ton. But letting that pass as imma-
terial, it may be safely assumed that no
Interpretation can magnify that section
of the act, taking it altogether, into any
/, Il. 70
three, thereby providing for special in
stance or occasion, but by no means in
tending to defeat the general and express
provision of section three, respecting the
election of those officers at the general
city election in May. The rule of con-
struction is that all parts of statute
shall, if reasonable, be made to stand TO-
gether; and it also may be asked, why
should the municipal judge and the spe-
cial Judges be elected at different times. {
this section was not intended for
special purposes! 1t would be
anomalous in loose legislation.
even in Minnesota, to make one section
repeal or nullify preceding section of
the same act, unless it was intended only
as a limitation as to time or extent of on
Grafton of the thus qualified section.
What object could the legislature have
had in view in providing by section three
that the municipal judges shall be elected
with the other elective city officers in
May, and then, in the same act, provid-
ing in section eleven that these Judges
shall be elected in November! Does the
specification of those particular wears.
1876 and 1879, mean anything? Is the
law respecting the office of municipal
judge so tangled. by accident or
design, that, like some waif living around
loose, it is stray COM
modify for anybody, who comes along,
to pick up and put on? The office is
one of great judicial Importance, and ii
is the duty of the city attorney and city
council, and it behooves the citizens, and
especially the Democracy of ST Paul, to
see that this Office is not usurped, as was
the Presidency in 1876.
"
S.T