The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-05-15
TIE REa1sTR ALTON LAW.
It's Constitutionality Widely Dis
cussed By Those Interested.

cussed By Those Interested.
The question raised with regard to the
constitUtionality of the present registra-
tion law of Chatham county has excited
much comment Two well known law
yers, who had not given the matter any
consideration before, stated yesterday
that they thought the points made with
regard to the unconstitutionaltty OF the
law would hold If the point were made
A decision of the supreme court OF Geor-
gia bearing upon the subject, has been
found in which it was held that appoin-
tive power conferred upon judges in such
cases was not in violation Of the constltu-
: ton. The case in question was taken up
from Chatham county. The judges Of
! the three courts were given the power to
appoint three freeholders who should
/ have charge of the registration and Of
elections in each of the militia districts,
and who should constitute a board of
! registration and election managers.
A CASE CITED.
The case was heard before Judge Tomp-
| kins, the bill being that Of Cooley vs..
| Russell, Nov. 9, 1882. Judge Tompkins
decided that the law was not repugnant
to the constitution, and it was carried to
| the supreme court. The supreme court
consisted of Chief Justice James Jackson,
| and Associate Justices NJ. J. Crawford
and Alexander NJ. Speer
II was decided by that body that the
act was not unconstitutional. 1t was
stated in the opinion given that the APP
| pointive power was the only one given to
the judges by the act, and all other mat
| ters were to be effected by the board APP
| pointed. This appointive power was put
on the same ground as that of lumber
measurers, road commissioners, notaries
public, as well as the power
to fill vacancies in Office, such as members
| of the board of education and the Offices
of tax collector and receiver, when there
are vacancies to be filed. This, it was
held, would not disqualify the judges
! from passing upon the acts of these free
| holders judicially. They held that the
| separation of legislative, executive and
! judicial functions, while it should be dis
tinct, as required by the constitution,
could not be total.
ONLY AN APPOINTIvE POWER.
1t must be held in mind that in thecase
Of the above law nothing but the APP
| pointive power was given the judges I'm
der the present registration law the reg
istrars are appointed by the judges, and
| take their Oaths before the commission,
they are subject to the rules and regula-
| tiOns of the commission, they are subject
| to removal by the commission with or
without cause, in their discretion, the
| DOOhS are 10 De htDb ulUeE bnGlG seal,
| they are TO fix the salaries of the
registrars and the compensation for all
other services and expenses incurred in
| carrying out the provisions of the act,
and to provide for the publication of the
| registration lists. This, it would seem,
| makes them executive officers as men,
! bers of the commission in other ways
than merely giving them appointive pow
| ers. 1t requires them to carry out in a
| dAtailaH the urONrIciOnc of a laniG
lative act.
THE MAssACHUs SETS LAW.
! In Massachusetts, in 1873, law requir-
ing the justices to appoint five supervis-
Ors of election in Ward No. 3, city of Bos-
| ton, was declared unconstitutional by a
supreme court bench of which Justice
Gray was chief. Justice Gray is at pres
ent on the United States supreme
court bench. There were four
which William G. Endicott was one.
The ground was the same, that 1t was a
conflict between the judicial and the ex-
ecutive powers of government
NOT A JUDICIAL FUNCTION.
1t was declared void because it was held
that the power was not a judicial func-
ton, and it was held that the legislature
had no right to impose it on the judiciary.
Their full opinion as to what are
| judicial duties was given, and
held that these supervisors were
strictly executive officers, and made
no report to the court. They held that
this power could not be imposed on the
judges, not as judges, because it was not
judicial function: nor as commissioners,
as the constitution did not allow them to
hold such Offices. The constitutions OF
Georgia and of Massachusetts are very
similar on this point.
Under the city registration bill these
judges are constituted the electoral com
mission of the city of Savannah, and un
der this bill the Judge of the city court is
made the judge of the registra
tion list. He is given the
sole power to erase names from thu
list when they do not properly belong
there, and to add them where they should
have been registered. This law goe
even further than the county law in con
ferring executive powers on the judiciary