The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-03-24
AS TO MAYORS-ELECT
Attorney General Haskell Gives an
Opinion on the Question.
THEY HOLD FOR TWO YEARS
IL Is Not Believed That There VIII
ee a Conflict. Notwithstanding
the Clashes In the Code
Provisions.
THEY HOLD FOR TWO YEARS


received an opinion from Attorney
General Haskell respecting the appar.
ent conflict in the election of mayor
and the date Of the municipal election
Mr.. Hamilton was instructed by the
Butte council to obtain an opinion on
this point as according to the new
code the law seemed to indicate that
a mayor must be elected each year
| and hold Office for two years.
AFTER reviewing at length all the leg
| islation OF Montana on the matter, and
after giving quotations from legisla-
ton in other states, Mr.. Haskell con-
| cludes as follows
| Notwithstanding the provisions of
the codes bereinbefore cited, II is con-
tended that section 4,74S of the code
| contains conflicting provisions, two of
| which provisions may be summarized
as follows:-
| "A. That on the first Monday of
| April OF each year the electors of each
city must elect a mayor and one alder
| man from each ward.
"B. The mayor to hold office for two
years, and each alderman so elected to
| hold office for the term of two years
The term of alderman and mayor is
liked at two years, which must control
and govern in this case as 1t was the
express intention of the legislature by
| amending section 3343 of the political
code to fix the term of mayor for two
years instead of one year, and that
so much of section 4748 which requires
the election to be held on the first
Monday in April Of each year refers
only to such officers whose terms will
expire on the first Monday of May sue
ceeding the election in April In the
construction Of statutes II is the duty
OF courts to execute all laws according
to their true intent and meaning; that
intent when collected from the whole
and every part of the statute must
prevail even over the literal import of
terms and control the strict letter of
the law, when the latter would lead to
possible injustice and contradiction.
I'VE have no doubt that from the
several provisions of the code, it was
the legislative intent that the terms of
mayor Of cities should be that of two
years as the provisions Of the codes
found therein expressly declare that
such was the legislative intention on
this subject. The codes must be con-
strued as If each had been passed upon
the last day of the session. Sec 516O.
with relation to each other the pro-
visions of the four codes must be con-
strued Except as in the next two sec
tions provided) as though all such
codes had been passed at the same mo-
ment and were parts of the same stat
ute. Sec. $751;
I'm the construction of statutes the
supreme court of the United States in
the case of United States VS.. HartwelI
says:-'The words must not be mar
rowed to the exclusion of what the
legislature intended to embrace, but
that intention must be gathered from
the words, and they must be such as
TO leave no room for a reasonable
doubt upon the subject. 1t must not
be defeated by a forced as over strict
construction. The rule does not ex-
clude the application of common sense
to the terms made use of in the act
In order to avoid an absurdity, which
the legislature ought not to be per-
mitted to have intended The proper
course in all cases is to adopt that
sense of the words which best harmon
ICES with the context and promotes in
the fullest manner the policies and OBJ
jects of the legislature. The rule of
strict construction is not violated by
permitting the words of the statute to
have their full meaning or the more
extended of two meanings as the wider
popular instead of the more narrow
technical one, but the words should be
taken in such a sense bent neither one
way nor the other as will best manifest
the legislative intent
I'm 1861 the legislature of Michigan
enacted a law which among other
things provided that the city marshal
shall hold his Office for the term of
two years and in the same chapter il
is provided that the city marshal shall |
be appointed by the common council |
at a meeting to be held the second |
Tuesday of January of each year
Thereupon, on Jan. IA. 1862, the city |
council of the city of Detroit appoint |
ed John b. Stadler, marshal, for the |
period of one year and stated in his |
appointment that his term of office |
was for one year, and thereupon he |
gave bond wherein II was stated that |
the term was one year. At the end of |
the year the city council appointed |
Daniel Mahoney to such office for the |
term of one year. In 1864 said Stadler |
brought suit against the city of De- |
troit to recover a salary from the city |
as city marshal of the city of Detroit |
for the year 1868, and the court held |
that as the act of 1861 had designated |
the term Of marshal for two years, the |
council had no power to limit ii to
one, Notwithstanding the fact that in
said chapter there was a provision
making 1t the duty of the city council |
TO appoint marshal on the second /
Tuesday of January OF each year.
1T will be observed that the statute
of Michigan contained the same con-
fiicting provisions as are found in sec
tions 474s OF the political code of Mon
tana. Such law provided that the mar
shall should hold his Office for the term
Of two years and further provided that
the common council should on the first
of January of each year ap-
point a city marshal. but the supreme
court of Michigan held that the terms
Of office having been fixed by the legis-
lature for two years, the council had
no power or authority to limit IL 10
one, and that the appointment Of Stad-
Ter in the first instance was a valid
one for the full statutory period. and
the fact that the term was stated in
his official bond for one year was Of
no effect as such recital was surplus
age and the appointment was valid for
the whole time; that where the statute
prescribed a term for the marshal OF
two years the council could not re-
n r-ict to.--r, s,1oh .,aIic.-. -