Albuquerque daily citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1895-1903, 1903-06-09
COURT DECISION.
CONTINUED from page IL

When such offices have been created
where is the power to fill these of
fees, AMI by what means? Referring
to section 1857. supra, we find that ''all
. . county officers shall be APP
pointed or elected in such as
may be provided by the governor and
legislative assembly of each terri
tory" BY this act of congress the sole
and exclusive power to fill county Of
fees is vested in the Legislative pow
Ell, with authority to delegate such
power to the voters of the several
counties, to be exercised in such man
ner as may be provided by the legisla-
tive power; or the legislative power
may appoint such officers. BY the cas-
ual observer it would be contended
that it is a vested right in every com
munity, or at least every COUNTY, 10
elect it's own oficers/; believing in To-
caLssHfsesefnment; but when we look
at the last mentioned act of congress,
we find that the voter has no such in
herent right, and, in fact, the only way
in which a county can have county Of
fees and county officers is through
the legislative power as given it by
congress, and that instead of it being
a local self-government. county Of
ficers may be appointed by the legis-
lative power, or by delegating such
power to some person or persons, en-
tTely ignoring the right of local self
government and the right of the peo-
PIE of each county to elect its own Of
hcers. The following case is of much
assistance to us in constituting section
1857, X. s., supra. In this case, Peo-
pie ex rel Waterman, v. Freeman, so
Cal. 1913 t22 Pac. Rep. 173, a statute
of California is construed. The stat
ute provided hat the state library is
under the control of a board of trust
ees, consisting of five members elect
ed by the legislature in joint conven-
tion assembled, and holding their Of
fees for the term of -four years. The
action was one on information in the
nature of quo waranto, instituted by
the attorney general through special
counsel. upon the relation of w. X.
Waterman, governor of the State of
California, against A. c.. Freeman, to
test his right to hold the office of
trustee of the state library under and
by virtue of Pol. Code Cal. section
2292." II was contended upon the part
OF the ~reiator, that the appointing to
Office was intrinsically, essentially and
exclusively an executive function, and
therefore that it could not be eXer
cised by the legislature. On the part
of respondent II was contended that
there is a specific provision in the con
stitution permitting the legislature to
thus appoint, citing section 4 of ar
ficIe 20 of said constitution, which
reads as follows: "All officers oil
commissioners whose election or ap
pointment is not provided for by thi.
constitution, and all officers or com
n~issioners whose Offices or duties may
hereafter be created by law shall b'
elected by the people or appointed
az the legislature may direct" Thu
supreme our in passing upon TIL
question said: "On the contrary, /
had not only been decided in othe
states of the union under constitution
containing provisions substantial.
equivalent to the sections above quot
ed from our own, that the legislator
could fill offices by itself created, bu
our own supreme court constpulnI
identical provisions of our own cor
stitution had come to the same cor
clusion." From a careful p%erusal @
this California case, 1t will be see
that the court clearly and distinct
sets out the three departments of go'
eminent and discusses whether or nc
section 4 OF Art. 20 of the constitutio
infringed upon the executive depar
ment. After holding that it did No
It then finds that the legislature ma
MI Offices by itself created. Tn
seems 10 have a very close resent
lance to the ease under considerable
Section 1857, supra, has the same T