The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-02-25
THE M'HUGH BILL.
Vicious Legislative Measure Denounced and
Its ConstitutiOnality Questioned. o.

To the Editor of the Indianapolis JournaE
The McHuGh munich pal bill just passed
by the Legislature, is en- inexcusable piece
1t was not demanded by the people, and is
in opposition to the lnterests of the people
IivID in the cities of the State. / have
been interested In the course of the Jour
nal in It's opposition to the BILL and regret
that IT was of no avail In the considera-
tion and criticism of the bill it seems to
have been regarded that if the bill passed
the Legislature it would sbe upheld as a
valid and constitutional enactment. Is
this view correct? Is the bill constItu-
tionaR In one of the editorial criticisms
of the Journal it is asked, assuming that
the Legislature has the right to extend
the terms of municipal officers eight
cen months. why has ir not the right
to extend the terms indetinitelyw Why
not let the Legislature name and appoint
municipal of1icersi think if the Leglsla-
LUre has the right to extend the terms of
municipal officers eighteen months it has
the right to extend the terms of such Off.
GERS until the end of the municipalities;
and If the Legislature has such right to ex-
tend the terms OF municipal officers. IL has
the right to provide who shall be the Off
GERS of municipalities aud to name them.
What is the extension OF term OF an otli-
Ger but the appointments of such officer for
the term of suoh extenslon7 II that 10 the
who has the right to select munlcI-
pal officers the inhabitants of
the municipalities or the Legislaturef
/ think there can be no question as TO the
right to make such selection. and tnat it is
the people themselves and not in the
Legislature. The people have the right to
say who shall act as their agents. and when
the people said the present municipal Off
cers should attend TO their municipal af.
fairs. that employment or authority given
by the people was limited to two years.
Now. II the authority of such officers is TO
be extended q longer time by the Legis-
lature, is 1t not the assumption by the Leg
islature OF the power of the people to de.
eide who shall be their agents. and the
length of time such particular agents shall
have such authority
The people have the right to say, when
they select an officer OF agent, that his au-
thOrlty shall extend but for a fixed and de-
termined time. or for period not to ex-
coed q determined time, and when such
officers or agents have such terms ex-
tended 1T should be only by those who
originally selected them. And the people
have the right to say. further. that they do
not want to extend the terms of such Off
GERS, and any such extension should be by
election OK appointments of the people. The
terms OF municipal officers TO some extent;
for instance, TO create. to abolish, to pro.
vide for their duration, ETC., but neIther of
srch powers Of the Legislature interferes
with the power of the people to say who
shall be their officers. If they are to have
any at all it leaves with the people the
right to select the officers they de-
sire. But to extend the term
of an officer prevents the people
from saying whom they want and selects
ma nh IN n W. nf -
reason that because q municipality once
selected an officer that it wants to continue
him in Office. The fact may be that they
want to get rid of him. and TO extend his
term would be In direct opposition 30 their
Wishes and therefore such extension is an
assumption of the power of the people to
select their own officers. | think the Con-
stltution coniers no authority upon the
Legislature 30 extend the terms of officers
chosen by municipalities, and that the at
tempt to exercise such authority In the
passage of the McHugh bill Is an unconsti-
tutional act. No person will contest the
statement that the people have the right
10 select their own officers, either by cleo
ton or appointment. IL is q fundamental
principle of our government. and to deny
it would be to deny the theory of popular
government.
do not desire TO argue the questions sug-
gested by the passage of this bill so much
as TO draw attention to the fact that It is
probably unconstitutional. The question
has not been directly decided by the Su-
preme Court of our State. think. but it
has been in other States. In the State of
New York the question has been decided In
the cases of People We. Bull las NY, page
81 and People VS.. Mckinney SO n. Y. page
374l. and other cases. In the former case it
is said:
The continuation in Office by enactment ex-
tending the thereof of who has
In the first place been elected 10 Ii Is
not properly the exercise of the power
TO declare the duration of an office. In
any proper sense, when the office is TO he filled
by one authority and the duration OF the term
thereof Is TO be declared by another. the
declaration OF the term must go before
the filing, that each authority
may have its legitimate exercise. And the power
TO declare the duration is completely exercised.
and for the time exhausted. when il announces
the duration of the term. WheI II goes further.
and declares not only the duration of the term
hut who shall ill the office for that time. IL has
invaded the province of another authority The
Legislature may declare from time 10 time, and
often as IL sees lit. what shall be the length OF
the tern OF Office but when 1t designates the one
who shall hold the office. IL has usurped the pow
er of the people, and its act in that regard is
void.
The question 10 at length discussed in
this case and the other one also. but shall