The Washington times., 1902-07-31

3S9). one of the grounds upon which tbs
appointment by the governor to the Office
OF harbor commissioner was attacked
was that under the provisions of tn.
code which gave the governor power tC
appoint three harbor commissioners Il
hold Office for two. three and four years
respectively, and also in like manner al
the expiration OF their respective terms
appoint and commission their success
ors for the full term Of four years ar
appointment which was made by the gov
ernor before the expiration of the tern
of one of the incumbents had expired
was valid. The term of the incumbent ir
question expired on March s, 1882. The
governor nominated his successor or
| April 12, 1881; on April i3 the senate
confirmed the appointment. and on March
| s, 1882, the governor issued his commits
sion and he qualified. The court held
this appointment 10 be valid.
In Whitney VS.. Buskirk (40 n. J. L.,
1863, i59. the respondent was nominated
by the mayor for the office of chief OF
police and confirmed by the council after
the resignation of the relator had been
accepted, but before 1t was to take effect.
1t was held that there was nothing to
prevent the appointment taking effect
upon the expiration of the term of the
incumbent. and that the appointment
was valid.
In Norton VS.. Shelby county (l1S U. 81.
the court in It's opinion cites and relies
upon. at page Az. the case Of Carleton
vs.. the People O0 Mich, 25O). In this
case by the constitution Of Michigan the
laws OF the Legislature took effect nine
ty days after their passage. The Legis-
lature on February 4 passed an act ere
ating a new county. and authorized the
election OF county officers in April fol-
lowin0 The officers were elected within
the ninety days; that is, before the act
! took effect, and they subsequently acted
as such officers. The validity Of their
act was questioned on the ground that
there was at that time no law that au-
thoriZed the election, but the offices were
existing bv the constitution. and as they
subsequently entered upon the duties OF
those Offices, It was held that they were
! officers de facto.
Amendment to the Code.
think it is entirely safe to affirm
that these justices are de jure officers
unless legislated out of Office by the
amendments to the code approved June
80, 1902. supra. On first blush it would
I
added to the code by the amendment oi
June 30, 1902. and which reads: That
nothing herein contained shall be held
to affect the term of office of any judi
cial or other officer holding Office when
this code goes into effect and operation,
except when. as In the case Of the pres
ent justices OF the peace and constables,
a contrary intention is manifested" had
| the effect of legislating the justices OF
the peace out of office. who had been ap-
pointed under the original provision of
section OF the code. However, when
one comes to consider the history OF
the amendments to the code, IT Is per-
| fectly apparent that where the words
| present justices of the peace and con-
stables are used in that section, they
were used In reference to the fifteen
justices of the peace. fee offices. in be-
| ing when the original code went into
effect on the 1st day of January, 1902.
and not the justices of the peace ap-
pointed under the provisions of the code
itself. / arrive at this conclusion for
the following reasons:
Amendments as Drawn.
l. These amendments were submitted
to Congress by the committee of the
Bar Association having them in charge
early in December. 1901. with the full
expectation that they would become law
at the same time the code went into
effect
| Section 1643 was prepared and sub
mitted by this committee.
2. On the seth of June. 1902. when the
amendments became law. there were no
constabies in the District of Columbia,
and there had been none since the first
day of January. 1902.
8. Congress having appropriated for
ten justices of the peace for the fiscal
year 1908 recognized the existence OF
the ten appointments under the terms
OF section OF the code, as amended.
| This leaves for determination the
question whether these justices were
legislated out of office by virtue of the
amendment OF section 8 set out in the
letter of the Auditor, quoted above. II
| the first sentence of this amendment
were all OF II. should conclude with
some hesltancy that they were legfslat
ed out OF office. 1t reads:
There shall be six justices of the
peace IN the District. who shall be ap-
pointed by the President of the United
States for term of four years. unless
sooner removed. as provided by law.
But this sentence is not all of the
amended section 3. In order to ascer-
tain the meaning of Congress. and when
ascertained 1t must govern, all the
amended section must be read and con-
sidered together; and not only all OF
the amended section must be so read.
and considered, but the statute which
| Is amended must also be considered
Every sentence must be given the
weight and influence that 1t is entitled
to have as shown by the context. This
| Is the universal rule Of construction
where statute is uncertain in its
meaning and intent. and is more or less
ambiguous in its terms. This statute is
| faulty in each OF these particulars.
Intention of Congress.
If Congress had intended to legislate
out of office the ten justices Of the peace
which it knew were in existence under
the terms OF the original enactment of
I the code. and to provide for six instead
thereof. to be appointed instanter. after
the taking of effect Of the amendment
| by language such as the first sentence
| of section 3. It strikes the ordinary mind
that it would have rested content with
the use OF that language and would not
have added. as 1t did further along in
said amended section. the following:
When the number of such justices OF
the peace shall be reduced by death,
resignation. or expiration OF term oi
service. or otherwise, to six. the num-
ber of such justices of the peace shall
he six only. and II the number shall not