The Mason County journal. [volume] (Shelton, W.T.) 1886-1927, 1899-09-29
No Extra Session Necessary.

On May 18th the Post-Intelligencer
published an-opinion said to have been
written by an able attorney, whose
name was not given, the gist of which
was to the effect that the Washington
legislature of 1899 had blundered in
not passing an act directing the cleo
tion OF superior court judges at the
general election of 1900. The POST
Intelligencer, commenting on the
opinion, said:
"The fault was found by the senate
Judiciary committe, composed of able
lawyers, to lie in the statute of 1895,
which redistricted the state, but which
did not provide for the election of
Judges after the general election of
1885,"
Gov. Rogers sent the Post st-Intelli-
gencer article and opinion to one of
the ablest lawyers in the state, an ex-
judge, asking for an opinion. He re-
ceived the following:
"Hon. John R. Rogers, Olympia,
Wash.-I have yours Of the 10Th inst,
and / have carefully examined the
opinion published in the Post-Intelll-
gencer, May %, 1899.
"In the view that the act of 1895 is
temporary act, the opinion is all
right down to near the close, where it
is stated: That the legislature of
1895, having repealed the acts OF 1890
81, and passed a temporary statute,
etc. Here is where the writer of the
opinion goes off the track. It's prob
ably true that the ac: of 1895 is ! tenn
porary act; that is to say, it provided
for certain groups of the counties into
which the state should be divided, re-
lative to the judges of the superior
court, and it likewise made provision
for the number of superior court judges
for the same, but for the year 1896
only. The provisions of the act being
thus limited to that one year, ia the
reason it is called Temporary
statute
"This temporary statute of 1895 did
not in terms repeal or amend the act
Of 1891. 1t only affected that act
and only to the extent that it in terms
changed the provisions thereof. That
change seemingly being expressly linn
tied to the one year, 1896, it follows
that the act OF 1891 was only suspend
ed for that time and survives after the
act of 1895 ceased to operate, and SC
remains the law.
"Had the act of 1895 been perpet-
ual act; that is to say, not limited to
any time, then it would have been q
repeal of the act of 1891 by implica-
ton, and had such repeating act after
wards been repealed, the act of 1891
would thereby be revived.-13 Amerl-
can and English Encyclopedias o: Law,
pages 5l7-518.
"But inasmuch as the act of 1895
being limited to one year in its operat.
ing effect, and not expressly repeating
the act of 1891, that act stands unaf-
fected by it, except to the extent that
it is changed by the express terms ol
the act of 1895, which heing limited
to the one year leaves the act of 1891
now entirely surviving and in effect
"The effect Of the 1895 act upon il
was only to suspend its operation dur
ing the life of the act of 1896; in other
words, during the period of time in
which the act of 1895 was in opera,
tion.
GAS to the decision OF our supreme
court IN the case of Dustin VS. Rusk
Is Wash, 404, referred to in the Post
Intelligencer opinion, the reasoning
and conclusions thereof are all right
enough. However,, the language there.
of, / think, might be improved in thi,
particular: Instead of saying thai
the act OF 1895 repealed the act ol
1891, I think the court should have
said that it suspended the act of 1891
and thereby in effect repealed it fol
the year 1896; but if that court inten'
| tionally and advisedly used the word
repealed instead OF suspended tber
that court must at that time have
conceived and would now hold thai
the act of 1895 is permanent statutt
and not temporary one, and moi
| limited in its operations to the yea
| 1896, as assumed in the Post-Intelli
gencer opinion.
II think that when the question i
presented to the supreme court It vii
hold that the legislature did. not in
tend to limit the act Of 1895 to th'
year 1896, but did intend its provision
as permanent provisions; and in nam
ing the year 1896 Only intended tina