New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-09-25
THINKS 1T UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AI,MET f. jerks DOUBTS THE LAW
UNDER WHICH MIR. BACklSS
TERM IS EXTENDED.
THE QUESTION CAME Up IN THE APPLICATIONS OF
THE FIVE REMOVED DETECTIVES
FOR 4 MANDhMIS

Almet F. Jerks made the somewhat surprising an
nouncement In the Supreme Court yesterday that ne
WAS inclined to think that the law extending Distrlc'-
Attorney Foster /. Backus's term or ONCE 10 iour
years IL unconstitutional The statement was MADE III
the argument on the application OF James kerwih
John Dee NJ J. McGlnnlss. John Foley and Joseph
Irwin who were county detectives In the once of the
lct-Attorney. and were removed on June 'V aS
for a mandamus 10 compel Mr.. Bsckus TO put them
back on the payroll Mr.. jerks appeared FOR the re-
lators He said that the question to be considered
WAS purely one OF law The men were appointed
some wears ago under chapter 0 Of the laws OF 1872
They We're removed under chapter II2 OF the laws OF
1896 which went into effect on May 70 Inc Ia"
under which they appointed provided that 'hey
should hold Office while on their good pehaNior' anu
that they could be removed except for cause ana
after charges had been preferred. In chapter az or
the laws of 1896 there was section repeating chapter
l0j OF the laws OF 1892 and another section allowing
the District Attorney to appoint county de'eclNes
and remove them at his pleasure. II was under THESE
sections that Mr.. Backus removed the hVe REALTORS
Mr. jerks said that the title OF chapter ~ was as
follows: AN in relation to the office OF the Dis
trict-Attorney OF Kings County. providing for the
election of District Attorney and the appointment
Of clerks. senographers and county detectives 'or the
said Office" Section 6 Of article Of the Constitution
provided that private or local bill might treat Oh
more than genera subject. and that must ne eN-
pained or suggested in the title OF the bill TheTe
was nothing in the title of chapter 772 to suggest the
repeal OF a former statute and II must therefore De
held 10 be unconstitutional Mr.. jerks said also tnat
he WAS inclined believe that another provision III
the act was unconstitutional and that II that was So
as II was bound up in the fibre Of the law. ho whole
chapter must fall This provision was inc one "hich
extended the term OF the District Attorney from three
to four years Mr.. BaclSus was elected In November
1885, under the old Constitution, for three years ana
1t was not until May 1885, that the law extending MS
term TO four years passed, on the ground mat II
was in accord with the new Constitution The ian,
glIage OF the law extending Mr. Backuss term uhul
1890 and providing that thereafter the term OF the
District Attorney should be four years, seemed 10
Indicate that ii an attempt 10 lengthen tle tcIi
of public officer in the course Of his term OF ONCE
which WAS in direct violation OF constitutional prl-
cIples Mr. jerks said he would not press TINS pont
He simply suggested IL as possible means LOT tue
annument Of the whole chapter. Inc repeal OF CHAP
ter 1O5 however piece OF dark lantern leSls-
laton and evidently in bad faith IL was certainly
and his clients were entitled 10 the
relief asked. ,..,. r,i.,,to, .
Attornev crane who said that he believed according
enough AS to the engthcnlng OF Mr. BackuS term,
the new Constitution provided that the Legslat ure
should fix the term of the District Attorney AT either
two or four years. When the new Constitution Went
into effect the old abolished Inc term OF
Tho District Attorney had been heightened pureN IN
accordance with the provisions Of the new Constlt
ton and 10 carry ont the direction that elections TOT
Attorney be held IN the odd numbered years
Decision was reserved and briefs VIII De submitted