Fairhaven herald. [volume] (Fairhaven, Wash.) 1890-????, 1892-11-24

instead of the first Monday of March.
The length of the term for which they
were elected, to-wit: tpO years, is left
unchanged. The "term,n we take it, is
the period for which they are elected.
Even the act Of February, 1896, limits
the duration of the "term" to two
years. How can it be said that the
term for which the present officers were
elected was two years, beginning un
the second Monday of January, 1891,
and ending on the first Monday of
March, 1898? That would be for term
Of two years and two months. There
Is no statutory or constitutional pro- |
vision which provides that the present |
county officers were to be elected for a |
longer term or period than two years. |
Therefore, for the present county otli- |
GERS to hold for q longer period than
two years, to-wit to hold from the sec
Ond Monday of January, 1891, to the
first Monday of March, 1898, would be
holding for a term or period of two
years and two months, which would
be in violation Of section S Of article xi,
of the constitution, which, as stated
above, in referring to county officers,
states: "Nor shall the the term OF any
such officer be extended beyond the
pointed" As to those county officers
now holding their second term, it
would also violate section : of article
xi OF the constitution, which provides:
"No county officer shall be eligible to
holi his Office more than tlcO terms
CONCLUSION
Now why is not the true conclusion
from the foregoing, this: That the
provisions Of the act Of February 4,
1856, in 50 far as ii fixes the term of
county officers at two years, is still in
force, but that its provisions relative
to when the term begins and ends,
have been repealed by Implication, by
section Ia, article xvii Of the
constitution, which at least
impliedly fixes the commencement Of
the term of the present officers on the
! second Monday in January, 1891. If
: this be incorrect, why did the present
county officers take their Office the
second Monday of January, 1891, in
stead Of the first Monday of March,
IS9l2 There is nowhere any cOnstitu'
; tional or statutory provision which
either expressly or implicitly provides
that the officers last elected were to be
elected TO hold for term or period o
two years from the first Monday O
March, 1891, but should nevertheless
! take their Office two months prior tC
the beginning OF their term, hold thOs,
= two months and then enter upon "A tive
: year term from the first Monday o
March, 1891, and hold till the frs
Monday of March, 1898.
81 The supreme court Of our state, in TIN
,, case of the Commissioners of KIM
County VS.. Davies, . Wash, 300, hav
e laid down the principal that, Wher
# there is a conflict in the statutes on tn
n same subject passed by the legislator
Il. at the same session, and the result G
y action under the one would be substan
: TALLY different from what it would b
under the other, the statute last en-
- acted will prevail, and the prior statut
. will be considered to have been re
pealed by implication. OF course tn
; same principle holds true in the case q
a subsequent constitutional provision
in conflict with prior statute tn
e result Of action under the constitU
v tiOnal provision is Substantially diiiel
:, ent from that under the act of Feb. 4
II 1886, in this, that under the forme
Is the term Of the p.esent county officer'
Df by implication (and as matter &
e. fact) began on the second Monday O
,s January, 1891, while if the statute o
' 1886 had been adheared to, their tern
ir would not have begun till the fir,
d Monday Of March, 1891.
If 1t has been claimed that section II {
article xvii, only applies to the firs
" officers elected after the adoption Of tn
20 constitution, and that section ) Of al
! tfcIa vi raGtfraI fha laaria1afupa Y,rif
v to the last election, to have enacted
sr law fixing the term Of county officer
4. which, not having been done, leave
IF the act of Feb. 4, 1886, AS the only la
n on the subject. Such a construction
ID unwarranted. Section Of article )
y does not require the legislature to enat
10 such a law within any specified tim
m nor to provide for the term Of office
I'd elected at the second election (bein
H. the election just held after the ado
ton Of the constitution. Nor does Sc
ton Ia, article xvii, Of the c0nstitt
m ton, apply to the present officers
:" claimed. That section expressly al
10 plies to the officers in office at the tin
nd Of the adoption Of the constitution, an
re only by providing when their ten
=. shall expire, does it refer TO and impl
W edly fix the time Of the cOmmenc
y ment of the term Of their SUCCESSORS.
~ ~ The act Of February 4, 1886, must
- construed in the light of section /
- article xvii, of the constitution, all
GO which are above given; and 80 constr
~ ~ ing it, can lead TO but one conclusion
-, ~ namely: That a single term for
% % county officer in this state is two year
,,o that the present officers were elect'
ho in 1890 for term or period of tv
~ years; that the constitution has
"a Implication repealed the provisions
w. the act Of February 4, 1886, in so far
,9 they fix the beginning Of the term, al
i; -. require it to begin in February instei
20 of March; that on the second Mondi
in January, 1893, the term of the pr,
rn ent county officers shall have reach
he period Of two years; and that if
av said time the county officers elected
~ the recent election qualify and tend