Evening journal., 1901-03-27
COURT UPHOLDS CHURCHMAN'S
RIGHT TO CITY COURT JUDCESHIP
JdgO BOye HodS That appointment Of The Present In
eumC0nt by Governor Hum Had to be Con-
liImed blythe State Senate


1.-THE Legislature may be inhibited by
the Constitution. AS was said by the
late Court of Errors and Appeals in
the case Of Coyle VS.. McIntire. z Houst
'k74l, the city of Wilmington being a
municipal corporation, all its powers.
land we may add as we'll. the jurisdic-
ton and powers of the Municipal
lCOurt under its charter are subordi-
mate to the powers of the Legislature.
And the Legislature, having the power
Ito repeal the corporate power exis-
tence has likewise the power to alter,
amend or abolish any of the agencies
thereof through which the POWERS Of
the corporation are exercised or to
change them or to substitute others in
their place.
Turning again to the act creating the
said Municipal Court we find by Sec
ton IA thereof. being chapter 2O7, vol.
II. Laws Of Delaware, that said court
was established; and by section IS that
its powers and jurisdiction so far as
they correspond with and are author
lied by and enumerated in section
Is. article 6, OF the Constitution
of 1881. are granted and defined.
Looking at this special grant of juris-
diction. the conclusion follows inevi-
tably that the said Municipal Court is
an inferior court within the scope and
meaning Of the constitutional provision
authorizing it's establishment, Crag vs..
State. supra. Mayor and Council OF
Wilmington vs.. Vandegrift, / Marvel
10: Forbes ct al. vs. State Pen. 1877.
And whatever may be said of the
nature and character of the other
powers conferred upon and entrusted
10 the said court by said act of Assem-
bly,, il has possessed from its very
creation a character differing from
that of a strictly corporate court. While
exercising the duties and functions Of
corporate court, such as the execu-
tion and enforcement of ordinances,
ETC.. of the corporation, it was, never
theless, created in fact an inferior
court such as is so denominated ana
expressly authorized by section 16, ar
ticle Of the late Constitution, ana
section 3 Of the Both, article A, Of the
present Constitution. And as such in
ferior court. II necessarily became from
the time of its establishment one OF
the courts under the judicial system Of
the State authorized by the Constitu-
tion.
1t has been said that it Is sometimes
quite difficult to draw the line of dis
Hnotion between strictly corporate du-
ties and public duties, but in this case
the distinction is so well remarked that
we are not embarrassed with any per-
picking question of that sort.
1t frequently occurs that the State,
in the distribution of its powers, for
the sake of convenience and expedi-
ency, confides to certain local govern
ments within well defined territorial
limits, the power to administer crimi-
nal justice therein. But because such
authority is limited to a certain local !
ity 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 in their character, Mayor
and Council of Wilmington VS.. Vande- !
grift.
The special powers and jurisdiction |
entrusted TO the said Municipal Court |
by the General Assembly under the
said provision of the Constitution al |
ready mentioned relate exclusively to |
infractiOns of certain criminal laws OF |
the State within the corporate limits of |
the city OF Wilmington, the enforce |
mcnt Of which has in the absence OF |
such an inferior court or any other |
court authorized by the Constitution |
is vested in the Court Of General Ses-
sicns-a State court. 1t seems to us, |
therefore. from what we have said, the |
conclusion that the said Municipal |
Court is something more than mere
corporate agency, is irresistible. While |
performing certain corporate duties, IL |
is true, yet it is clothed with higher |
and more important public duties. IL |
is stamped with a greater dignity and |
is Of more public Importance than that /
of q mere corporate court or agency. |
And by the specific grant of jurisdic- |
tion conferred upon it under cOnstitu-
tional authority, lt follows, we think, |
that said court is in the administering |
of the criminal Jaws of the State CON /
ided to it, circumscrlbed within well |
defined limits, it is true, a public or |
State agency. And its judge, charged 1
wlbh duties it may be said dual in their /
character-public and corporate,-is a |
public officer to the extent, at least, OF |
the enumerated powers and duties inn
posed upon him by the Legislature pur-
suant to said provision in the Consti-
tut,cn. He is a judge of an infsricr
court established by the General AS
saml5ly under said section Of the late
which and some addi-
tions thereto was Incorporated into the
present Constitution; and as a judge
OK such inferior court he is an Officer
within the meaning and purpose of sec-
tion l. article 3. of the present Consti-
tuticn tthe salary. fees and emolu
neuts Of his Office exceeding the sum
OF 5000 annually whose appointment
must be confirmed by the Senate as (
provided by the sad last mentioned I.
asction.
While. as we have already said, the
main question before the court in the
case of Gray VS.. State supra, was an (
attack upon the act Of the General AS (
sembly creating the Mayors Court. it