The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1904-08-27

than that, is entitled to weight in the de-
cision of the question. The legislature
made no provision for filling these offices
during this interim unless II extended by
implication the terms of the incumbents.
No express provision Is made therefor, 1t
seems that the governor would have no
right to appoint for this intervening time
under his authority to fill vacancies Such
authority seems to extend only to cases
in which a person has been elected for
the term, and for some reason a va
cancy occurs, leaving an unexpired term;
or, after an election to term there has
been failure to qualify; or, after the
expiration of the term there has been a
failure to elect at a general election for
that purpose (code 1868, 4243, 30S5).
Little VS.. Foster, 100 Ala. 154.
Fox VS.. Mcdonald 101 Ala, 81, and
6, IL. N, FOL.
viii Have No Authority.
II will thus be seen that If the term
ends September first, next, the governor
will have no authority to appoint for the
time intervening between that date and
the election and qualification Of successors
in November. A special election might
be held for that purpose Code 1898, sub.
d; but a construction should be avoided.
If possible, which would cause the public
expense and Inconvenience, which would
result from a special election. l think
the statute which postpones the election
of successors considered in connection
with the statute that the present off,
GERS shall hold till their successors are
elected and qualifed) extends to that ex-
tent the terms of the incumbents. 1t is
usually held that where a statute directs
the legislature to prescribe an official
term, and the legislature has enacted a
law fixing the term, and an officer has
all tod for fha had ..
legislature Is powerless to extend such
term, just as 1t would be to extend a
term the length of which is fixed In the
constitution itself.
State VS.. Arlington, is New. 412.
People vs.. Bull, 46 N. Y. 81, Am. Rep.
3O2
People VS.. Mckinney, So N. Y, S74
People VS.. Foley, las N. Y, 677
State VS.. Tallman, "a Wash. 1926.
People VS.. Randall ISL N. Y, 497.
People VS.. Palmer, 154 NJ Y. 1S3
1t has also been held, however, IN many
jurisdictions that while under such cir
cumstances the legislature may not ex-
tend term, still. 1t may change the date
of election to suit the public convenience,
or TO avoid frequent elections, although
such change may incidently result in the
extention of the term, unless there Is
something apparent upon the statute
which indicates that the change In the
date of the election was really for the
purpose of extending the term, and not
liking In good faith, convenient date for
holding the election.
State vs.. Ransom, 70 Mo IT,
State vs.. McGovney, 90 Mo. 42s.
Jordan VS.. Bailey, 81 Mimi, ia.
State vs.. Benedict, IS Mimi, 1893.
Wilson VS.. Clarke, CD Kansas sos
State VS.. Anderson, GA Kansas. A.
People VS.. Chruch, Cal, 76
May Rghtfully Continue.
l think the Justices now holding Offices
may rightfully continue to exercise the
powers and duties thereof until the cleo
ton and qualification of their SUCCESSORS
There Is little risk that injury will re-
suit from following tl.s course, even
should my conclusion nc erroneous II the
incumbents continue to hold by virtue of
their former election, and the statutes
above cited. and to exercise the functions
of their offices, they will at least he de-
facto officers, and their acts will be valid
and binding so far as the public is con-
cerned
Cary VS.. the state, rs Alabama. rs. s h.
H. S4-'6.
You did not ask that express an opin
ion as to when the term of the success
sors of the present officers will begin, and
upon that question no opinion is ex-
pressed.
The terms Of these cheers having been
implicitly extended. they are within the
act approved September II, 1903. General
Acts, 1903, page 23S) requiring county Of
hcers whose terms have been extended
to execute new bonds for such extended
terms. The sureties on their present bonds
Will not be liable for a breach occurring
after the expiration of the time within
which, under the old law. successors
would have been required to file new
bonds Code 266l 30S0) New bonds should
be filed and approved on or before the 10th
day of September A failure to give such
new bond will cause vacancy. Very re-
spectfully, MASSEY WILSON.
Attorney General