The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-01-19

the exact purpose in view when the
amendment was proposed. Had the pro-
viso in question read all county and
township officers whose successors etc,
then the exact and precise literal inten-
ton would have been expressed But
the fact that only certain sections OF
the constitution were in contem-
platl0n-nOt the judicial article-and
the fact that still later in the session
the same legislature enacted the bien-
NAL election statute specifically provid-
ing for the appointment of these judges,
demonstrate nearly and clearly enough
that the expression all officers means
county and township officers.
The biennial election act has been de-
clared valid and constitutional by the
supreme court, and If all officers means
district judges, it is because the emand-
ment repeats the statute. If it has not
worked a repeal then district judges are
not included in the hold over prOviso.
If the statute is repealed it is by i'm
plication only, and one of the establish
ed rules of construction is that repeats
by implication are not favored. Another
rule settled in this state is that constf-
tutiOna1 provisions and sta tutOry enact
ments are to be similarly construed
Still another is that no literal interpre-
tation viii be given to constitutional
requirement when it would lead to alb
SurdftleS. Another announced in 1eaV-
enWorth VS.. Miller, Kan 479, and by
many state courts is that a constitution
is to be construed with a view to the
conditions and objects intended to be
accomplished at the time of its adOp-
ton.
In Wheeler vs.. Brady. Is Kas. 81. Mr..
Justice Valentine showed by conclusive
reasoning and decided that an election
! of a school district treasurer was not
/ included in the words any election
used in the suffrage section Of the con-
stitut3on.
In State VS.. Thomson. 2 Kas. 427,
! 1t was argued that the adoption of the
( provision that all laws of a general ma
/ ture shall have a uniform operation
4 throughout the state oAerated as q re-
peal of a pre-existing dramshop act
Which the court conceded to be a gen
eral law. and not of uniform operation
/ throughout the state. But the court
! held that so literal construction could
not be given the provision. as it would
/ be too absurd to be worthy of cOnSiderd-
ton. and cited two cases as directly in
point. 90 o. s. $50 and 3 Ind. 25S.)
Here was also applied another uni
versal rule OF constitutional as well as
statutory construction, that a prOSpec-
/ tive and not a retrospective meaning
must be given unless the language used
lmDeratlvely requires an imitation Of
Lots Wife
In Prouty vs.. Slower. Il Kas 235, it
was held that a constitutional amend
ment may repeal a statute by imDlica-
ton, but whether the amendment does
work such repeal is determined by the.
same considerations that control III
cases Of an implied repeal by statute
At page 254 in holding that the con
stltutlonal amendment relating to the
election of a state printer did not repeal
the statute upon the same subject. the
| court sai5=
6 The amendment did not in terms re-
! peal the act. It could operate as a re-
peal only by implication. But to repeal
by implication. there must be an incon-
sistency. 9. conflict between the two
/ IN the DrOhlb1tOry amendment cases,
"A kas 723. the amendment was held
n Il
act except the part authorizing licenses.
M Justice Brewer said:
II the constitutional amendment was
ADOPTED what effect has it upon the dram
shop act? And upon this question the
members Of this court are not fully in ac-
cord, vet the majority holds that the pen
alties of that act are still in force Th5
difference arises upon the scope and appli-
cabllty of two accepted and well approved
rules Of statutory construction. One is that
repeats by Implication are not favored that
where a subsequents statute departs in
formal repeal of such prior act, the pro
visions of the former will be unheld so far
as not absolutely inconsistent with those
OF the latter. rms is true of constitutional
as we'll rs statutory changes Crooks vs.
T. ]. 96; Prouty vs.. Slower u Kan. 25).
Not only IS there no conflict here unless
a latitudinarian import be given to the
words all officers, etc. but the other pro
visions of the constitution are to be giver
equal weight with that accorded to the
amendment. The judicial article is I'M
changed, az is also section / Of article Is
that all officers whose election or appoint
ment is not otherwise provided for. shall
be chosen or appointed as may be provided
by law Also section 19 Of article that
the legislature SHAH have power to pro
vide for the election or appointment of al
officers and the filing of all vacancies moi
otherwise provided for by this constitu-
ton
IN this case the legislature has pro
vided by law for the appointment of these
judges and the governor has full consti
tutional and statutory authority to max,
such appointments"