Chicago eagle. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1889-19??, 1893-09-09

bury, H.. 500; Crook VS. People ex
REL, 1903 H., 237. The Attorney
General, after quoting the decisions
at length and making an exhaustive
argument in connection with them,
says:
1T makes no difference, therefore,
that the reason given by our Supreme
Court when passing upon questions
of this kind in separate cases may
not be precisely the same; the result
attained the conclusions reached
in all are precisely alike. | am of
the opinion, however, that the bet
ter reason for holding such laws valid
and constitutional is that the evil
designed to be remedied by the franz
ers of the constitution was to prevent
the possibility of favorites hav-
ing their terms of office ex-
tended by friendly legislators,
and that it was never the
purpose to prevent the Legislature
from making reasonable changes in
the time of electing officers The
policy of the State, as manifested by
the last act, is to increase the term
of the County Commissioners from
one to two years, and in so doing
that body thought it was wise and
| saIutary that future elections should
be held in years when other county
officers would be elected, thus Great
ing as far as possible uniformity in
the election Of all county officers.
This unQuestionably the Legislature
had power to do, and if incident
ally it has the effect to extend the
term of an officer beyond the time
for which he was elected, that in and
by itself does not render the act I'M
constitutional.
A decision by the Supreme Court
of Missouri State ex rel. VS.. Ran
som, 10. 80, and 80 Mo-, 42S), where
the State constitution contains a
clause similar to that in the Illinois
constitution, is also referred to in
support of this opinion. The Att1r-
ney General holds that the act passed
by the last Legislature having taken
effect July and by its terms repeal
ing all legislation in conflict with it
is now the only law on the subject OF
the Cook County Commissioners.
The opinion concludes:
at will be seen upon examination
that this law, both in its title and
in the different provisions contained
therein, strictly conforms to the Con
stitution. The object then on which
it operates is the entire subject
matter about which it legislates. i
is not necessary that all or some o
its provisions should be different from
the old law upon the subject: tina
there should be new legislation eithe
in addition to or in conflict with tn,
old law on the same subject, and i
that were necessary such legislation
, is found in the act in question. Flo
example, the new act differs iron
the old in two leading particulars
First, under the old law the term 0
f office was one year: under the ney
} law it is two years. Second, undo
{ the old law, in case of death, resigna
ton, removal from Office, or othe
e inability on the part of the Presiden
to act there was no provision of Law
e to meet a contingency of that kind
r in the new law there is such pro
/ vision, for it provides that the boar
shall ION the happening of any of tn
: foregoing contingencies) elect one o
their number to I'll the unexpirel
, term of the president. Suppose tn
, president OF the board died last June
how would his place be tllled? Tier
was no provision OF law therefor.
he died since the lst OF July the thir