Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1900-11-22
SHOULDBE ADJUSTED.
Major John F. Lacey On the Titus
Amendment.
COUNTIES SHOULD RECOGNIZE RIGHTS
Decision on the Question Involves In.
terests of Many Persons Other
Than Officers Whose Terms Seem
to Conflict.
IFrom Wednesdays Daily.1


[From Wednesdays Daily.l
Congressman John F. Lacey says it
is important that the legal rights of Of
ficers about whom there is much con.
troversy in connection with the provi-
Sions of the Titus amendment, should
be adjudicated before January /, if it
can legally be done. Major Lacey says
it seems clear to him that counties
should recognize the right to have the
conflicting claims adjusted before the
beginning of the terms in controversy,
and presents his reasons therefor:
Major Lacey's Suggestions.
In an interview with a reporter on
the Oskaloosa Herald concerning the
amendment, Maj. Lacey said:
fsae decision of the question in
wolves the interests of many persons
other than the officers whose terms
justices of the peace. Questions of
Jurisdiction will at once arise involv-
SaE long litigation and injury to pri-
sste individuals. In the case of coun-
ty attorneys there would be controver
sy as to who should sign an indict-
ment after the 7th day of January,
1901, and also which one should appear
before the grand jury in the examina-
&ksn of the witnesses. If the wrong
tSiin should assume to act, the indict-
nsent would probably be void. The
rights of many persons would be af-
fected and the administration of the
criminal statutes of the state very
greatly complicated,
II is therefore important to the gen
Aral public, as we'll as to the officials
elected, and now in office that their le-
gal rights should be adjudicated before
the first Monday in January, 1901, ii it
can be lawfully done. Quo warranto
proceedings against person wrong
fully holding office is the usual method
employed
"Under section 1920 of the code it
is provided that:
when several persons claim to be
entitled to the same Office or fran
chise petition may be filed against
all or any parties thereof, in order to
try their respective rights thereto.
QUO warranto proceedings under
the Iowa code are not limited to the
trial of the question of illegal instru-
sion or illegal retention of an office,
but under this section the claim of
title may be adjudicated also.
The case can be submitted upon an
agreed statement of facts under sec
ton 4377-43S4 of the code.
'There is nothing in the law in re-
gard to submitting questions without
formal action on an agreed statement
or facts, which would prevent the
trial of quo warranto controversy
in the same way.
when the vote on the amendment
is canvassed and returned the ques-
ton at once arises. Two sets of Off
Gals claim title to the same Offices
and I see no reason why the claims
cannot be adjudicated under section
1920 of the code.
When the district court decides the
question an appeal may at once be
taken, appearance entered in the SUI.
preme court and time waived by the
parties.
"The supreme court would advance
the cause on the calendar and make
an order allowing briefs to be filed
by all persons interested in the ques
ton. A decision could thus be made
in time for the officers to know theil
rights before the beginning of the
ISim. ~ Wall uhli JANUARY =, pSAols
commencing proceedings, would in
yolve official chaos for time.
AS to the merits of the question, il
seems to me that it is quite reason
able to hold that by the words whose
term of office would otherwise expire
in the year 1907 is meant the officia
year beginning the first Monday in
January, 1901, and ending the first
y IN Tor, xuhn
the amendment speaks of the tern
of Office expiring in that year. il
has reference to the whole officia
year, as portion of the term of office
expires every day. And the fact that
the last few days of the term expires
in 1902, would not effect the meaning
of the amendment when its refers te
the year 1901. 1t is not strictly a,cal
endar year that is involved, but the
official year which would be popularity
referred to as the year 1901.
IF this view should be taken by the
courts there would be no difficulty il
the case. The public is more con
cerned in a prompt decision of the
question than in any other feature Of
the matter.
1t seems to me that two county OF
state officers would readily sign ant
submit the necessary agreed state
ment to the courts at the earliest
practicable date, as it is to their NUT
ual interest to know their rights anc
liabilities. The state board of can
vassers will announce the result be
fore the first of December, which
would give time for careful presen
tation of the question and final deci
sion before the first Monday in Janu
ary.""
1.-THE general rule in proceedings il
the, nature of quo warranto is that sui
cannot be brought unless it is claim
ed that some one is unlawfully exer
cising the duties Of the office. In low;
the purpose and scope of the actor
has been enlarged to include claims t,
hold an office and the statute shoult
oSkox<Skokokc4oko