The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-03-25

Dealing provision, contained in section
2,4S0, for nowhere do we find, nor have
we been cited to any special or eX-
press provision in the revision repeal
ing the act of 1896. No direct reference
thereto Of appeal anywhere appears
No doubt il is we'll established as a
general rule that an unqualified repeal
of a statute creating an Office aboliShes
the Office, and removes the incumbent
but where, as in this case, the repeal
ing statute was enacted, not for the
purpose of abrOgating all the laws, but
merely for the purpose of effecting a
revision and codification of the laws
the repeating statutes must be con-
strued in the light of the circumstances
which surrounded its enactment, and
! effect must be given to the intent of
! the legislature, even though the repeal
{ appears to be, in terms, express. In
/ the general plan of revision, there was
/ no design To absolutely repeal all the
statutes of the state. Nor will court
assume, because of the repeating
clause, that in such plan there was an
intention to abolish offices necessary to
/ the public good. or to remove the in
! cumbent thereof. The evident design
! in the plan of revision was to continue
I in force the great body of the statutes
I with some notifications and amend
4 ments, as we'll as to continue in exist
! ence the officers necessary in the execu-
| ton of the laws under the revised
/ statutes. The object, doubtless, was
not to abrogate, or change the law to
/ any great extent. or to abolish offices,
or remove incumbents. but to reconcile
| contradictory enactments and dis
crepancies, to remove doubts and weed
| out superfiueus matter, to give the
sanction of positive law to rules which
| had previously been promulgated and
stood alone on the authority of usage,
/ deduction and judicial decision and to
+ render all enactments of statute law
! more concise. clear, accurate, and prac-
! teal.
THE INTENT MUST PREVAIL.
To prevent rejected and super
/ ffuous matter in the old laws from
/ having the force of law in
the new, and to prevent
erect and operation of old laws for
when different provision was made in
the new, the repeating statute was en-
acted. and was thus but a subordinate
feature OF the general plan. The cor
rectness of these observations will be
come more evident when we consider
that. simultaneously with the repeal.
the great mass of the laws were re-en-
acted Not an instant of time elapsed
between the repeal and the re-enact-
ment. The repeal must, therefore, be
regarded as merely a part of the means
of revision. as but necessary formal
ity to substitute the revised statutes for
the statutes as they were be-
fore the revision. The old stat
utes in practical operation and
effect, must be regarded, by the
courts, in constituting the revised stat
utes and acts of amendment and re
peal, as continued and modified, rather
than as abrogated and new ones en-
acted, although in terms all were re-
III
must prevail, even though opposed to
the literal sense of the terms, and con-
troll the strict letter of the repeating
statute, and where a particular con-
struction, which appears TO be included
within the terms, would lead to absurd
consequences, the court will, out of re-
spect to the Legislature, adopt some
other construction which will avoid
such cons eqUences, if from the whole
purview it may fairly be done. The
legislature can never be presumed to
have intended an absurd thing.
Where a law is plain and unambig-
uous, whether it be expressed in gen
eral or limited terms, the legislature
should be intended to mean what they
have plainly expressed, and, conse-
quently. no room is left for conStTuc-
ton. But if, from view of the whole
law. or from other laws in pari ma
terra, the evident intention is different
from the literal import of the terms
employed TO express it in a particular
part of the law, that intention should
prevail, for that, in fact, is the will
OF the legislature"
L. s. VS.. Fisher Cranch, 35S 399.
In Wright Us. Oakley. Metc.. 400. Mr..
Chief Justice Shaw said: In constituting
the revised statutes and the connected acts
Of amendment and repeal. 1t is neces-
sary to observe great caution. to avoid
giving an effect to these acts, which was
never contemplated by the legislature.
In terms the whole body of the statute
law was repealed: but these repeats went
into operation simultaneously with the
revised statutes. which were substituted
for them. and were intended to replace
them, with sucn modlhc2uon as
We're intended TO be made by
that revision. There was no moment
in which the repeating act stood in forcs,
without being replaced by the correspond
ing provisions of the revised statutes. In
practical operation and effect. therefore.
they are rather to be considered as
continuance and modification OF old laws,
than as all abrogatiOn of those old. and
the re enactment of nav ones. In order
TO construe them correctly. We must take
the whole Of the revised statutes. to-
gether with the act of amendment and
the repeating act. and consider them in
reference TO the act of 1896 the revised
the legislature had in view in making the
revision.
In the light of these principles then, and
by their application to the case before us,
we must prpc9eu TO OeLerlllne. Dy Iurtner
reference to the act of 1896. tn revised
statutes. and the act OF repeal whether
the Legislature intended to abolish the
Office Of chief of police.
ACT OF 1896 A RE-ENACTMENT.
The act Of 1896. as we have seen. was
q re-enactment and amendment of the !
act of 1894 and. under these acts were ]
created d fire department and police de- |
partment in cities Of l2O0O or more in
habitants. The chief of police was the /,
executive officer of the police department. /
His Office was thus created by statute, I
and was in existence at the time of the /
revision of the laws, and upon his ap- /
Dointment he was entitled to hold the 1
Office during good behavior unless there /
after II was Otherwise provided D. Jaw. /
Under the same acts other police officers 4
were appointed. and they. together with |
the chief OF police. constituted the police /
force. peace officers. in cities of the !
class designated in the statute. In the \
revised statutes. ch. I. sec zoo. subdiV. SO. |
We find that by express provision the city /
council mas beer giVen power TO provide |
for the organization and support of a !
fire department" and TO prescribe the !
necessary regulations therefor. But no.
the revision. nave We been able TO find, |
nor have we been cited to any such pro-
vision. respecting police department in 1
cities Of the first class-the class to which /
Salt Lake City belongs. Although there |
has been found no provision. creating a
police department in the large cities. there
is contained In chapter g. section 2lS r. |
s.. a provision for the election. in all /
cities of less than 1900 Inhabitants. of a
city marshal. and in section PAS. respect
ing the duties Of the marshal in mis- char
acfer as chief of police. il is provided as
foilows:' In cities of less than II. 900 in
the marshal shall be ex-
pfficio CHIEF of police and shall perform
The duties and exercise the authority
thereof He shall under the direction Of
The council. direct and control the police
n tho city. and whenever the interests
Of the city demand, by and with the con-
sent of the mayor. appoint such number
IF special policemen as may be required