The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-01-04

! provided by the action OF the state legislature
under the constitution. Such being the case, il
| cannot be held that any of the laws OF the ter
| ritory are now in force in the state, ex.
cepung such as have been made thus of
loFce bf the constitution itself, or by
the action OF the state legislature 1t is not
cialmed that there has been any legislation By
tAe state which affects this question. We can,
therefore, only LOOK TO the constitution itself for
KS determination. The schedule provides gen.
erally that all the territorial laws shall continue
III iofce, excepting such as are repugnsus to the
constitution. Thls provision was broad enough
70 Continue il force the act in question, and il
must Do held TO be in force unless it is repur-
nant to some provisions of the constitution or
the schedule. II is provided in section Il o.
said schedule that:
All district. county and precinct officers. who
may De in office at the time of the adoption OF
this constitution, and the county clerk Of each
county elected at the first election, shall hold
their respective offices until the second Monday
on January, 1891, and until such time as their
successors may be elected and qualified III
ton.
This provision and that continuing the laws
OF the territory in force are both found In the
schedule and. OF course, must be construed to-
getheE. Thus constituting them IL seems to US
clear that there could os no intention to
continue in force the act under cousidsrn-
tion IL such had been the intention, there
would have been 10 recessity for the p.ovi-
sion contained in sad section Il Such a pro-
vision IN Itself, and without any reference to
the act in question, limited the terms of the Of
hcers then in Office ana the limit thus II xed was
different one from that named in
said act. When the provision to affect
the act in question could longer
stand as II was repugnent 10 the terms OF the
constitution. IL follows that it was not contin-
ued in force by the provision above referred to-
The fact that there is a further provision in said
Section ii. that tho officers therein named
shall continue to hold after the Sec
ond Monday OF January, 1891, until such
time as their successors may be elected
ana qualined, can have controlling
influence such provision is the usual one to
prevent an Office being lett untitled by reason of
the failure TO elect a successor, or of such sue
cessor to properly quality and enter upon tho
duties OF the office. 1t is very clear from such q
provision OF the schedule that it was the inteu-
ton of the constitution that officers TO be elected
at the first election provided for in the constitu-
tion, should take their Office on the second Mon.
day In January, and no. on the first Monday
in March. provided for under said act
of the territorial legislature. 1t would never
have been provided that tho tenure of
those holding office under the territory
should be continued until the second Mon
day IN Janusry only, and that the term of Off
GERS to be elected as their successors should not
commence until the first Monday in March.
ions OF section 5, Article VI. of the constitution
furnish additional proof of the intention os
the constitution makers TO provide fully
upon the question OF the terms OF
the officers mentioned in said act of the legisla-
ture, and that such full provisions having been
made. the continuance of said act in force was
unnecessary. Ii is provided in said last named
section that such officers shall be elected
on the Tuesday after the first Monday
IN November, and that thereafter
ell elections for such officers shall be
held benuially on the Tuesday next succeed
ing the first Monday in November. such pro-
vision for the election of these officers shows
clear intention that their terms of Office shall
be two years, and, as we have already seen that
the term OF office OF those first elected
commenced on the second Monday in
January, 1891, it follows as a reasonable con-
clusion that their terms will end on the second
Monday in January, 1898. and that that date
will be the commencement OF the terms OF their
successors in office. 1t is not necessary for
tho purposes of this case that we should
determine to the effect OF section s.
of Article Xf of the constitution.
Whether that section, construed with section
S, of Article VI, above mentioned. will be held
to have authorised the Legislature to prescribe
such a length of term 1t sees it for such
officers. whether IL shall be held that said
section simply authorizes the legislature to
fix the date when the two-years' terms shalt
commence and end Is entirely foreign to
the question at bar. 1t II enough
for the purposes OF this case that We hold, as
We do, that the provisions OF the constitution
In effect have made two years term for such
officers and provided that such term
should commence on the second Mon
day OF January next succeeding
their election, and that whether or not
the legislature has plenary powers in fixing the
length of such terms and the date of their COM
mencement, such provisions of the constitution
must remain in force until action has been
taken by the state legislature. The judgment OF
the superior court must be affirmed.