The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-06-28
RIVER At s A. NJ.
A CONFIDENTIAL" OFFICER.

When doctors Of law disagree as to
what is the law laymen may be ex-
cused from being presumptuous for
having their opinions of what is law.
They always have them, and, as
rule, the less they know the more en-
them. AS their acquaintance with that
great mystery grows, through expert
ence with its intricacieS and uncertain
ties, the less certain they are of the
footing Of their judgments, and, while
they may continue to think, they are
more chary Of speech. But when it
happens that learned judges disagree
and hold point blank against each
other, it leaves laymen free to consider
their respective reasons and to accept
that side Of the case which commends
itself to their judgment
The supreme court has accorded to
those not of the learned profession Of
the law freedom to entertain and ex-
press their opinion upon what they
think is or should be the law in a
case affecting public interests. We re-
fer, of course, to the case of Dahl He
was and is a member Of the house of
representatives, elected in 1896 for a
term of two years. He was a stenog-
rapher prior 70 his election, employed
by judge Of the Hennepin district
Journment Of the Legislature, was re-
appointed to that office. The question
was raised that this violated the con-
sttutional prohibition against senators
or representatives holding any office
under the state during the term for
which they were elected. This the SUI
preme court applied to the case Of SUIT
ton who, after adjournment Of the leg
tslature in which he was a represent
atlVe, and during the term for which he
was elected, was appointed by the gov
ernor to some office created by the
state. The majority of the court dis
tinguish the case Of Dahl from that of
sutton, holding virtually that Dahl is a.
"confdentiaP' officer of the court and for
that reason is immune from the proyf-
sion of the constitution.
From this opinion Justices Buck
and CAVITY dissent, and the latter
gives his reasons in that Wig
orous language that character
ICES him. 1t has none of that diplo-
macy, that softness of terms, that mild
~ apologize tone that is customary
with judges who venture to dissent
from their associates. BluntIy he tells
them that the word "confdan-
tlaI does not appear in the constitu-
ton; that court stenographer is
either public officer or he is not: that
If he is a public officer he cannot hold
1t because he is still representative:
shat it is public Office because it is
created by an act Of the legislature.
because its incumbent is paid out of the
pubic treasury stated salary: be-
cause before entering on it, he takes an
oath prescribed by law to be taken bv
persons assuming public office.
Justice Buck is milder in his dissent
than his virile Junior but he reaches
the same conclusion There is no rea-
Son for regarding the reporter as a
c0nfidentiaP'' officer; his official acts
are public records; he cannot make q
private record of a public proceeding
such as all trials are; he is a sworn
public officer, paid by the public. We
agree with the dissenting Justices The
constitution makes no exception of anv
office; there is no such thing as a icon
HdentiaP' officer in the state-barrins
the bank examiner-and he so only by
grace of his excellency the governor.
The reporter is not even so "confiden-
tiaI' an officer as is the sheriff, for the
latter can be compelled to keep secret
proceedings Of the grand jury and the
indictments returned by it, but it will
hardly be argued that a legislator
could be elected to and hold that office
during the term for which he was
elected
We arprehend that the opinion Of lay
men, with hardly an exception, will agree