St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-02-08
IAROINE MUST 60,
And Hogan Will Remain Coun-
ty superintendent for
Another Term.
OPINION BY GEN. CHILDS
that No Vacancy Exists and
the Old Incumbent Holds
Over.
OPINION BY GEN. CHILDS
THE COMMISSIONERS AGREED
To Abide by the Attorney
Generals Opinion, Hence
Jardine Is Out.

1t is now practically settled that Mr..
Jardine, the foreigner elected TO the po-
sition Of county superintendent OF
schools at the last election, Will have to
rustic for another Job at which to en-
ploy himself TEN DOrarily for the next
two years. fer Supt. Hogan has dead
cincn for another term. The following
opinion, submitted by Attorney General
Uhilds to County Attorney Butter, dis
poses Of the question without further
parley, if the county commissioners
stand by their resolution to be governed
5y the opinion of that official:
Opinion by ChiIds.
"PIerce Butler, county attorney:
You state that the candidate
for the Office of superintendent of
schools Of Ramsey county who received
the highest number of votes cast for
such office was ineligible thereto, for
the reason that he had not been uatur-
allied or declared his intention to be-
come citizen of this country prior to
the general election held in 1894. Since
that time he has qualified himself
in such regard and is now an applicant
for appointment TO said Office by tn e
board Of county commission erS upon
the theory that vacancy now exists
therein. The board of county commits
sionerS have deferred action in the mat
ter for the purpose Of being advised by
you whether or not vacancy does IN
fact exist.
The amendment 10 the constitution,
adopted Nov. 6. 1898, is relied upon by
the applicant for appointment, and it is
urged that the term Of said Office ended,
by reason of such amendment, Oh the
ftb day Of January, 1895.
There is seeming force to this view,
but it is not,
In Wy Opinion,
the proper construction to place upon
the language of that amendment. In
the case OF the state VS.. FriZZle, 81 Min
Lesota, AGO, in which that provision of
lhe constitution was thoroughly consid-
cred, the court held that it is not deal
Ing with the terms of Office as that
matter has been elsewhere disposed Of
Furthermore, the court says in Taylor
vs.. Sullivan, 10 Minnesota, 80: If the
election of the respondent was not
legally authorized the relator would
continue to hold the office by force Of
this express provision of the statute
having reference to the General Stat
utes OF 1878, section s, chapter 2lO.
ut IS true 1t does not appear from the
decision III the laSt-named case that at
tentlOn was drawn " SAID amendment,
but III view of what was said in the
i0imer case l do not feel justified in
assuming that a different result would
have been reached if the amendment
nad been strongly pressed upon the
consideration OF the court. 1t may be
further said in support Of this view that
neither the Trainer of that provision nor
those who supported it in the legiSla-
sure would have sought to effect so
sweeping repeal OF pre-eXistlng legiS-
lation without eVincing it i'll unmistak>
able terms. Certainly the prevailing
opinion, both among lawyers and lay
nien, is that, with very few exceptions,
The incumbent holds over until his sue
cessor is elected and qualified.
Il am therefore OF the opinion that no
vacancy exists in the said office, but
that HE old incumbent will continue III
office during Tie present official term.
Il am very truly yours,
II. w. CHILDs,
"Atttrnev General"