The sun., 1901-03-28

through which the powers of the cor
poratlon are exercised or to change then
or to substitute others in their place,
Turning again to the act creating tht
said Municipal Court, we find by section
IA thereof, being chapter 2O7, Vol. XVII
Laws OF Delaware, that said court was
established, and by section 15 that its
powers and jurisdiction, so far as they
correspond with and are authorized by
State authorized by the constitution.
1t has been said that it has sometimes
quite difficult to draw the line Of dis
tinction between strictly corporate duties
and public duties, but in this case the
distinction is so well remarked that we
are not embarrassed with any perplex-
ing question of that sort. 1t frequently
occurs that the State, in the distribution
of its powers, for the sake of convenience
and expediency, confines to certain local
governments, within well defined territor-
ial limits, the power to administer GRIM
inal justice therein. But because such
authority is limited to Il certain locality
or district, it does not make the duties
which the possession of such power
imposes, nor the agents charged with
the performance thereof any more or less
public in their character, The special
powers and jurisdiction entrusted to the
said Municipal Court by the General
Assembly under the said provision of the
constitution already mentioned, relate
exclusively to infractiOns of certain
criminal laws of the State within the
corporate limits of the city of Whining
ton, the enforcement of which laws, in
the absence Of such an inferior court
or any other court authorized by the
constituton, is vested in the Court of
General Sessions--a State court. 1t
seems to us, therefore, from what we
have said, the conclusion that the said
Municipal Court is something more than
II mere corporate agency is irresistible.
While performing certain corporate
duties. it is true, yet it is clothed with
higher and more important public du-
| ties. 1t is stamped with greater dig
nifty and is one of more public import
ance than that of Il mere corporate
| court or. agency. And by the specific
grant of jurisdiction conferred upon it
| under constitutional authority, it fol-
| lows. We think, that said court is in the
administering of the criminal laws of the
State confined to it, circumscribed with
in wel-defned limits, it is true, Il public
or State agency. And its judge charged
with duties, it may be said, dual in
their clmracter-public and corporate
is public officer to the extent at least
Of the enumerated powers and duties
imposed upon him by the Legislature
pursuant to said provision in the con
stitution. He is IL judge of an inferior
court, established by the General Assem-
lJ. 80 La
stitution, which and some additions there
to Were incorporated into the present
constitutions; and as a. Judge of such
inferior court hai - a.
lthe meaning as and emoulments of his
larficle q Of Ils the sum of $500 an
nually) whose appointement must be con
! firmed by the Senate as provided by the
said aforementioned section.
While, as we have already said, the
main question before the court in the
case of Gray VS.. State supre, was an
attack upon the act of the General AS
senbly creating the mayors court, it
was also objected that the Legislature
could not bestow upon the corporation
the right to appoint the officers of such
court because of section 8, article 3 OF
the then recently-adopted constitution
dS31) which provided that 'he (the gov
ernoI) shall appoint all officers whose
offices are established by this constitu-
ton, or shall be established by law, and
whose appointments are not herein
otherwise provided for." The court in
meeting this objection: These are not
officers either of the State or county.
hut of the corporation, and, though it
should be considered that the court, as
Il mayors court, under its enlarged juris-
diction and new name, Is established by
the act of 1882, it is only by the in
icrease of power, of officers existing be-
fore the constitution and whose ap-
lpontments are therein otherwise proyid-
ed for, to wit: BY the saving of the
right to the corporation of Wilmington
to elect its own officers '. They
(the Legislature) We're authorized to
select this corporation court and bestOw
upon it all the jurisdiction that they
c0nld confer on any inferior court OF
their creation. Having selected it. and
established it as a court with enlarged
powers. the appointment of its officers
remains as heretofore in the corporation
=. A pertinent and controlling
Fact in this case is that the appointment
of the Judge for said Municipal Court
MS now established. does not remain IN
: the corporation of the city .. Whining
ton, but it was, under the act creating
s;id court, reposed in the governor of til,
State. And whether il be conceded ol
,, not that the sald judge is an officer o.
. the corporation, we must look outside
!. of the reasoning pursued and the con
cusion reached in the other case to de
: termine this case. And in doing so, j
will be necessary. as we have alread,
/. said. to examine the provisions of tn
: present constitution in connection will
'. the act establishing the said Municipal
Court. BY the said act il is made tn
:. duty of the governor to appoint an
: commission the said city judge. An
: !. said section 8, article 5. provides tina
= y, the governor shall have power, unles
y herein otherwise provided, to appoint
= by and with the consent of such officer
= as he is or may he authorized by thi
- constitution, OF by law to appoint.
"a 1t will he observed that the phras,
+ and enumerated in section 10, articl
n 6 Of the constitution of 1881, are granite
5. and defined. Looking at this specii
s. grant of jurisdiction, the conclusion 70
al lows inevitably that the said Munipic
te Court is an inferior court within Il
n scope and meaning of the constitution
to provision authorizing it's establishment