Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1900-11-15

Draft Of the Bill Was
Correct-Chsnged in tho
Committee

OF office OF those officers elected in 1898
are not in any manner affected by the
constitutional amendment.
REMLEY's OPINION.
Remley's opinion lie addressed TO J. y.
Crossley Of Winterset, Madison county.
where the question was first formally
raised a. to an error n.the amendment.
The text Of the opinion follows:
.Des Moines. Nov. a. 1s0o.-Hon. ].
j. Crossley, Winterset, Iowa My Dear
Sir: Yours OF the 10th inst. at hand, re-
questing my construction Of the consti-
|tutional amendment adopted at the last
election, especially with reference to its
effect az { extending the Office Of
ty recorder.
I'm regard thereto I will say that the
constitutional amendment seems to have
been drafted upon the idea that the
January and terminate on the 3lst of
December Of the following year., but nn-
fortunately this il not the ase BY geo.
ton 1860 OF the ode the terms of office
commence on the first Monday OF Janu-
AIRY after the general election at which
the officers are elected. except. fret, that
of the governor and the lieutenant gov
ernor. which commence on the second
Monday OF January mex following their
election Constitution article 4, section
ISL, and second, the members of the
house Of representatives, whose terms of
office commence on the first day OF jan
uary lei after their election (constitu-
ton article 3, section -, and third,
Judges OF the supreme and district
courts, whose terms OF office commence
on the first day OF January Constitution
article 5, section 11). The terms OF office
of all other officers, under section 1850.
commence on the first Monday Of jan
uary next after their election.
The following clause OF the constitu-5
tional amendment is the one in which
the doubtful meaning arises. viz: The
term OF office OF the judges Of the su-s
preme our which would otherwise ex-
pire in odd numbered years. and all.
other elective state, county and town
ship officers whose terms OF Office would
expire in the year one thousand nine
hundred and one, and the members of
1.-THE general assembly whose successors
would otherwise be chosen at the gem
eral election in the year one thousand
nine hundred and one are hereby ex-
tended one year and until their success
sors are elected and qualified This
clause, II taken in its literal sense, dig
associated from other parts of the said
amendment, would undoubtedly extend
the terms OF Office of all officers whose
terms expire the first Monday of Janu-
airy, 1902.
This result, however, Is to my mind
the reverses OF what was intended by the
two general assemblies and Of the people
by whom the amendment waa adopted.
! do not think there is any difficulty In
arriving at the intent OF the constitu-
ional amendment. The purpose wac to
have biennial elections and to abolish
the election heretofore held in the odd
numbered years. This constitutional
amendment does not disarrange the
terms of office OF those who have been
elected In the past in the even numbered
Years. In order to have all officers
elected in the same year II became nee
eFsary to extend the term Of Office OF
those Who We're elected in the odd NUM-
bered years one year. This intent is, to
my mind, plainly indicated. Nor do /
think there will be any disagreement
among courts. lawyers or laymen that
such was the intent Of the two general
assemblies by which the proposed
amendment was submitted to the elect
ors who adopted 1t.
The question thus presented is this:
Shall the misuse Of aAword or q few
words, or the insertion by nistake az
one word for another defeat the plain
intent and meaning OF the amendment?
Shall the literal meaning Of q word 81
g clause be adopted which thwaris the
VIII OF the people as expressed In the
amendment taken as q whole? Are the
courts powerless to carry out the plain
intention OF the amendment because OF
mistake IN one word, or the unfor-
tunate use OF q clause? Reason, Justice
md broad sense say that each of these
questions must be answered in the neg
alive. It would be a sad commentary
upon the law and the courts to say that
they hold to the contrary.
But the law does not so hold. The
courts are not poweriess to give effect
to the intention OF the amendment.
There Is no difference in the construc-
ton or Interpretation Of the constitu-
ton or Interpretation OF a constitutions
al provision and a statute. Both are
interpreted by the same rules of con-
struction. The constitution, being the
fundamental law, is by the courts pre-
sumed to have been repaired with more
care and elaboration than an ordinary
statute. But the same rules are ap-
, Piled in constituting a constitution as
sare applied in constituting a statute.
In Sutherland on Statutory Con-
struction, section $40. 1t is said: THE
presumption 10 that the law maker has
definite purpose In every enactment
md a adapted and formulated the
Subsidiary prpvisions in harmony with
that purpose 3that these are needful to
accomplish ID and that. IL they have
the intended effect. they will at least
conduce to erectuate 1t. That purpose
is an implied Limitation on the sefse Of
general tsi{ end q %touohstone for the
leyp narrower terms. This in
iste1 ds a key to the sense and
Sc Tor provisions. From this
proceeds the general rule
rdinal purpose or Intent Of
e shall control and that all
! interpreted as subsidiary
pious. They are TO be
harmony II possible. and
that no clause, sentence
be void, Nperfiuous or
But where wordsin
make theclauSe inswhich