Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1899-06-22

e.ph onereirom, TO the contrary else
| where IN the Constitution. Said section
- as foliows: Section 10. All the
laws OF this State existing at the time
TINS Constitution shall take effect. and
not inconsistent with it shall remain
10 force, except SO far as they shall be
| altered by future laws" Section 9 of
tne schedule provides as follows
section 2. This amended Constitu-
tion snail take effect on the 10th day
q June in the year one thousand eight
hundred and ninety seven ~
Inc manifest intent of said clause of
section 10 was generally to continue in
force and being, beyond question, all
those matters whose existence or
validity heretofore depended on any of
SUCH laws. For this purpose like
CLAUSE was incorporated in our first
State Constitution of 1776, and in
every succeeding Constitution. There
lore, as 1t plainly imports such a CON
stltutional intent, it accordingly did
continue in force and operation the
then existing statutes establishing and
empowering said Municipal Court, aud
consequently the existence and said
jurisdiction thereof, except SO far as
inconsistent with or restricted by apy
express constitutional provision. or
any clear and certain implication there
from. Ts e
But the plaintiffs in error claim that
the continuance of the existence and
said jurisdiction of the Municipal
Court for the city of Wilmington was
Inconsistent with the present Consti-
tuition, and especially because, as they
urge. it was abolished by force Of
l rdt nj II n r n.
schedule thereof. The language of said
clause is as follows. "All the courts
! OF Justice now existing shall continue
with their present Jurisdiction, and
the Chancellor and judges shall con-
tinue in office until the 10th day of
june in the year one thousand eight
hundred and ninety seven: upon which
day the said courts shall be abolished,
and tho offices OF the said Chancellor
and judges shall expire
| Since said Municipal Court is not
expressly named, nor like inferior courts
| OF statutory creation as a class ex-
| pressly referred to in said first clause,
reference must be had to the remain
ing provisions of said section 8, and
| also to the provisions of other sections
Of the schedule of which it is part,
in order to determine whether or not
the said Clause was really intended by
its trainers to apply to and operate
upon said Municipal Court, o. any
| statutory or other court except those
| expressly and particularly named in
the remaining clauses of section o.
Examination of said remaining
clauses, as well as of the provisions of
section 10 and section IS of the
schedule, in connection with said first
clause of section 8, seems to warrant
the conclusion that the said aboishipg
| clause, Notwithstanding it's general
language" All the courts of Justice
now existing''--was intended to apply
only and exclusively to the courts
expressly and specifically mentioned
by name in said section 9. For all
three of said sections 3, 10 and lS,
being alike schedule provisions, must
be construed together with view to
| giving due Effect to each and con-
sistent and harmonious operation to
all. As the remaining clauses OF section
| o subsequent to said first clause
| thereof. expressly make particular
| provision for the transfer of all pend
| ing proceedings, &c. and OF the records,
&c, of the several courts respectively
| and specifically named therein, and
make no provision whatsoever for the
transfer Of the. pending proceedings,
&C., and the records, jurisdiction, &C.,
| Of said Municipal, or any other statu-
L tory inferior court, or of, the registers
fcourts or Justices of the peace. the
reasonable inference therefrom obvi-
ously seems to be that said first clause
| was not intended to- apply to, or
embrace within its operation any such
statutory court, or any registers court,
or justices of the peace In view OF
such careful forethought and particu-
lar provision respecting the courts
specifically named in said clause, ii
| is improbable. and therefore unreason,
able,'if not absurd. to conclude that
the trainers of said clause could have
intended thereby to abolish any such
| useful and needful court without maxi
ing ADEQUATE provision for such transfer.
i Further evidence that the trainers
of said abolishing clause did not in
tend that il should apply to any such
statutory court as said Municipal
Court, or to the registers courts or
Justices of the peace, is found in the
significant fact that they maze AIDE.
auate provision to the contrary, and
for their continuance, respectively, in
said section is of the schedule, as
already shown, and in section 10
thereof which is as follows; '.'unless
otherwise provided, theregister's courts
and the jurisdiction of justices OF the
peace shall not be affected by this
amended Constitution.
This view that the convention which
framed, adopted and promulgated the
present Constitution, intended to con.
tinue in existence and operation, aud
not tc abolish. any such already law
fully existing inferior court rs the
said Municipal Court, is confirmed
by the express terms Of the judiciary
article itself, as contained in section
40 Of article 4 thereof as follows
ssSection 80. The General Assembly
may by law give to any inferior courts
by it established or to be established,
or to one or more justices of the peace,
jurisdiction Of the criminal matters
following, that is to say assaults and
batteries, keeping without license a
public house of entertainment, tavern,
inn, ale house, ordinary or victuaiine
house, retailing. or selling without
license, or on Sunday. or 70 minors,
wine, rum, brandy, gin, whisky, OF
spirituous or mixed liquors, contrary
to law, carrying concealed deaels
weapon, disturbing meetings held foi
the purpose of religious worship, NUS
ances, and such other misdemeanors
as the General Assembly may from
time to time, with the concurrence
of two thirds OF all the members
elected to each House, prescribe:
1.-THE General Assembly may by law
regulate this jurisdiction, and provide
!, that the proceedings shall be with OF