Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-02-18

NiASSS1 tte fisnt 70 elect thss
couneilreha The election of
resldsnt OF the ward by a maiorit
oil The electors Of the entire city do,
not satisfy the requirements of m
law. The cooncilnea n,n.. N
elected BY Tho electors of the war
they are to represent.
1t is argued, however, that III
proviso to section one above quote
annuls the provision. fsauirin
councilpen . lie elected by tb
yeteEs OF the respective wards whic
lhey are to represent. The lar
guage relied upon is: ssNor shaI
thls act q interfere with tb
manner Of selecting the officers.
While the term s1electei;, Is use,
IN other places in the section Quoted
the term here Used n sselectinp.
The former feiers 10 an election /,
the voters, while the latter term In
cludes such an election and 40
pointments by the i>iatos ans
council ne vel. Before the ac
under consideration took effec
some Of the officers Of the CITY ver,
elected and Others were appoints.
by the mayor and council. BY tiIi.
provision the intention was 10 pre,
vent any Inference Of a change in
the manner of selcctihg officers.
The contribution contended for by
the Defendant brings the phrase in
conflict with three plain provisions
OF the section in which II Is found.
and also with other provisions Of the
act of which il is n part. In cities
elsewhere councilmen are usually
elected by the voters OF municipal
wards. Local representation is a car
dinal principlein our system OF gov
eminent. By combining the provis-
ion in question 10 the class of cities
mentioned in the prOviso, or 20 re-
gard 1t as simply relating 10 the man.
ner of selecting the officers Of the
city and not 10 the territorial limits
OF the municipai districts, makes it
accord with the provisions Of the
act pointed out.
In constituting the language Of 4
statute the court will presume that
the legislature intended il TO have
It's ordinary meaning, unless il
clearly appears from the connection
in which 1t Is found. or the purpose
Of the enactment, that a different
meaning was intended. And
the act should be so con-
strued as 10 give effect to all
OF its provisions ami it should have
a reasonable construction in view
of its purposes and objects. 1t is APP
parent from the whole tenor Of the
act in question that the intention Of
the legislature was TO give to the
people Of the municipal wards in
cities Of the first and second classes,
through their electors, the right TO
elect their own cOuncilmen. Phys
ically, a municipal ward consists of
the territory within it, limits and
the people residing upon il. But the
political action OF those people with
respect TO the municipal govern
ment is quite another thing. The
wards are composed OF
different people, but the manner OF
their political action is precisely the
same in all. 1t appears plain that
the legislature in the Use of the
phrase ''nor shall this act in
terfere with the manner
Of selecting the officers" did net in
tend to require the c0uncilmen Of
the respective warts TO be elected at
large.
But IL is said that the Supreme
Court Of this Territory, in the case
Of Watson vs.. Corey, decided at the
January term, lSs9, held that phrase
last quoted required the councilmen
10 be elected as they We're under the
Did law. In considering the ques-
ion as 10 whether SECTIONS 10, II. Is
and 10 applied 10 existing cities not
under the laws in
which they We're found, the court
referred to the provi-
ion now under consideration. In
hat opinionthe Court did not consid-
n and construe section one ofarticle
Tx Of the act. | do not regard the
loint now under consideration rs
decided so as to make il binding up
IN this Court in deciding the ques-
ion.
But counsel contend that the |
electors of the respective wards have |
no authority to elect coIacilmen
Until the city council has divided |
he city into five wards under the |
vet of 1855 above referred TO. The |
assume that the city was
iivided into five wards when that |
vet took effect, and counsel eoncede
{ in their argument. And the
court in deciding the case of the
People ex rel. BynOn vs.. Page as
umed the fact in holding that the
lfficers TO be elected in Salt Lake
lily were those mentioned in the
Ict of 1855. The election Of three
for each Of the five
wards must have been based on the
of the existence of those
Yards Ii also appears that the de-
endant canvassed the votes of the
Fourth Ward and found that the
Plaintiffs were the three candidates
or councilmen who received the
highest number Of votes frog
he electors of that ward.
am Of the opinion that the exist
nee Of five municipal wards Mt the
ime the act oflsSS took effect and at
he time Of the election in question,
vas sufficient. These five wards
local subdivisions of the
ity, which the court may take no
ice OF. 1t appearing that the plain
ifs were elerted by the electors OF
he Fourth Wand OF the city, they
re entitled to their certificates.
he fact that the defendant has is
Ied certificates to the candidates
rho received the fewest number of
otes in the ward, and that he has
elivered the returns TO the officer
ntitled TO their custody, furnishes
o excuse for not issuing the certifi-
ates Of election TO the plaintiff. 1t
'as his duty to canvass the votes
nd declare the result, and give GER
ficates showing the result to the
ersons receiving the most votes
rom the electors Of the ward.
The peremptory writ ofmandamus
sked for is granted.
Messrs. Mcbride and Dickson
ave notice that they would appeal
ON the ruling Of the court, and
ne bond on appeal was fixed at
800.
For New York.