St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-07-06
HOLMAN SAYS YEA.
He Holds the Old Committee Is in
Full Power.

On Feb. 5. 1889. the then president Of the
common council appointed Aid. Cullen,
Sanborn and Leithauser as members of your
committee. On March IL, 1889, these gen
tlemen met with MessrS. Mltsch, Bohland,
and Boyd, appointed by the chairman of the
board of county commissioners and your
committee then organized. On May 6, 1889
all the above gentlemen again met with
Mayor Smith as chairman, and elected q Gus
todian, engineer and other employees, and
fixed their salaries and term of Office,
the latter to begin on May s, 1889.
On June 6, 1889, the president
of the common council appointed Aid
Cullen, Conley and Pratt as members of your
committee. On June II, 1889, Messrs. Cul-
len, SanbOrn and LelthauSer again met with
your committee, were recognized by the
chairman, and participated in the trans
action of the business. The joint committee
took charge of the building on or about May
8, 1889.
Upon these facts am asked to render my
opinion as to the validity of the claim of
MesSrs, Sanborl and LeithauSer to the Office
in question, Mr.. Cullen'S title thereto being
undisputed. It is important to the city of St.
Paul that it should be represented on this
committee, and for this reason | deem it my
duty to give this opinion, although have no
authority to determine any controversy be-
tween claimants in this Office.
The president of the common council had
the power to appoint three members or this
committee under the act of March 8. 1881.
This law was amended on April Is, 1889. i'll
two material particulars, viz: The building
is placed in charge of the committee when
completed and the mayor of the city is made
ex-ofiicio chairman thereof In other re-
spects the law of 1889 remains the same as
the law of 1881. The legislature has the
nndoubted right of abolishing any office, and
of abridging or extending the term
thereof; but no such construction
will be placed on any law unless
laws provide that these appointments shall
be made annually, and fix the compensation
of the members at 500 per annum. No
words can be found in the act of 1889, from
which it can be fairly inferred that the legis
lature Intended to abrldge the STERN of Office
of the three aldermen appointed on February
last 1t seems to me that the act of 1889
must be constructed as fixing the term of Of
flee of this committee for one year from
the time of the completion of the building
which is conceded to be about May 8, 1889
Neither act prescribes the time when these
appointments shall be made; the president
of common council had the right to make
these appointments in February last, and
thus anticipate q vacancy in this committee,
which would exist if no appointments were
made until after the completion of the build
ing. 1t is evident that the chairman of the
board of county commissioners has placed
the same construction upon these acts, for
he has failed to appoint any new members of
this committee since the passage of the act
of April 13, 1889.
1t is clear to my mind that the aldermen
appointed in February cannot be ousted
from this Office unless by the proper pro-
ceeding in court, and that ali the acts and
doings of Messrs Sanborn and Leithauser,
as members of this committee de facto, are
valid and binding until they are. ousted by
the Judgment of court having jurisdiction
of the matter
The honor of submitting legal opin-
ion upon so grave and momentous a
question was then accorded to Judge
Roam