The sun., 1901-03-28
CHURCHMAN
WINS CASE
Continued from First Page.)

And whatever may be said Of the
nature and character of the other
powers conferred upon and entrusted to
the said court by said act Of assembly,
il has possessed from its very creation a
character different from that of a strictly
corporate court. While excusing the
uutes and functions of corporate
court such as the execution and enforce
,nent Of ordinances, Ne, of the corpora
lion, it was, nevertheless, created in
TACT an inferior court, such as is 50 de-
nominated and expressly authorized by
section Is, article OF the late con-
htitution, and section 30, article of
the present constitution. And as such
inferior court, it necessarily became from
the time of its establishment one of the
courts under the judicial system OIL the
ology of this section is quite different
from that of the corresponding section
contained in the late constitution.
''Shal appoint all officers whose offices
are established by the constitution or
shall be established by law is the
language in the latter section; and it
~ M be further observed that the phrase
.or shall be established by law in that
section imports future operation and
carries with it the purpose of pros
pective application.
.Shall have power to APP
point such officers as he is
or may be authorized by this constitu-
tion, OF by law to appoint" is the Ian
guage in the corresponding section Of the
present constitutions; and the phrase
''such officers as he is or may be authori-
....ANf
ports Il present as well as future oper
alton and carries with it a present design
and operation as comprehensive in its
meaning us the Language of the phrase
itself; and we fail to see how these
words, bred as they are i'll their meaning
and scope, do not embrace and carry
with them the office Of the city judge of
The said Municipal Court, whose ap-
pointment is by the governor is expressly
authorized by law under the statute
creating said court and designating its
Judge and the mode of his appointment,
encated before anJ legally existing at
the time Of the adoption of the present
constitution. For as was said in the
Forbes case supra, the words ''estab-
lished or to be established" in their
natural and ordinary meaning reason
ably imply that the trainers Of this (the
present. constitution contemplated the
continued existence of some inferior
court or courts--such as said Municipal
Iouit lawfully established by the Gen
trI assembly before and legally exist
ing at the present constitution was to be-
come operative and this being so, the
language of section 8, article 8, consider
ed i'll its natural and ordinary meaning
reasonably implies that the trainers of
The present constitution contemplated the
continued existence of the said Munich
pal Court and the future appointments
of its judges, broadened the language of
said last mentioned section over that
used in the corresponding section in the
late constitution for the purpose of max
ing confirmation of the Senate of such
future appointments necessary. We
think. it altogether improbable, if not un
reasonable, to conclude that the members
of the late constitutional convention, hay
ing, as they must have had, the exist
ence, continuance and Importance of the
office of said municipal judge i'll con
temptation, would not and did not throw
around the future appointments to said
office of municipal judge the same
check placed upon other appointments
portant officers. The language of said
section 8, article 3, is too broad and
comprehensive in its meaning and legal
import for any such strict and limited
construction which have been i'll a very
able and interesting manner to urge to
place upon it. We think it both appli-
cable and adequate for the purpose for
which it has been envoked by the defend
amt i'll the case.
The fact that there is special pro-
vision i'll relation to the appointment Of
justices of the peace and the judges of
such courts as the General Assembly
may establish pursuant to the provisions
of section l or section 80 of said article
8, the last section of which in the Forbes
case was given a prospective application
ana therefore not applicable to this case,
we may reasonably conclude was proyid-
ed because confirmation by the Senate
of officers appointed by the governor
under said section 3. article 8, shall be
required only when the salary, fees and
pmUlumcnts of office shal. exceed the
sum of $500 annually, and it is we'll
known fact that the fees &C., of many
of the justices of the peace, and it might
well be said, inferior courts do and would
not exceed the said sum of $500, and be-
cause of this fact and the Importance of
such Offices, said special provision was
incorporated.
The demurrer is therefore overruled
and Judgment rendered in favor of the
defendant.
Visit the Red Star Stamp Store. 517