Northern Wisconsin advertiser. [volume] (Wabeno, Wis.) 1898-1925, 1906-05-17
STATES ATTORNEYS MAINTAIN
1T is GOOD LEGISLATION:
FAVORED BY DECISIONS
No Court of Last Resort. State ar
National, Has Ever Held a Civil
service Act Unconstitutional on
the Points Raised by Commissions
er Bergh.


IN the Wisconsin merit law that en-
dangers its life when tested upon
constitutionality, attorneys for the
state yesterday made their arguments
before the supreme court in the suit
brought by Commissioner of Banking
Bergh. Attorney General Sturdevant
opened the argument in the morning,
maintaining that the states demurrer
ought to be sustained He examined
the contentious of the plaintiff that
the legislature intended to provide
that the merit law should not apply
to the department of banking. Attor-
ney General Sturdevant argued that
whatever the intent of the legislature
may be, it must be fairly written in
the law, and it is useless to argue
that words of law mean other than
what they ordinarily signify in the
English language. He said the law
contained no provision, which fairly
interpreted by accepted definitions of
English words could be held to ex-
clude the department of banking from
the operation of the merit law.
The arguments were closed by At
torney John M. Olin, who reviewed
the civil service decisions of the sew
eral states having such laws, and of
the United States supreme court,
showing the trend Of legal decisions
in favor of this kind of legislation.
Mr.. Olin closed his oral argument by
stating the following propositions:
Courts Favor Such Laws.
1. The law in question is highly
remedial and should be literally con-
strued to effectuate its purposes. Such
has been the uniform trend of the
decisions, both state and national
2. No statute of this kind has ever
been held unconstitutional by the de-
.cision of any court of last resort in
this country, whether state or federal
.. The federal and state courts
have many times construed such stat
utes and in each case have held them
constitutional.
resort in this country can be found
that holds such law unconstitutional
as an unauthorized interference with
the rights of citizens because it ex-
cludes from the classified civil service
any person who shall not have taken
the required examination. There are
number of decisions TO the contrary.
5. No decision of any court of last
resort can be found in this country
that holds such law unconstitutional
as depriving state officers of any au-
thority conferred upon them to ap-
point their subordinates. There are
many decisions to the contrary
G. No decision of any court of last
resort in this country can be found
that holds such law unconstitutional
because of interfering with the duties
of the secretary of state as auditor OF
the state. There are decisions to the
contrary in both New York and Illi-
nois.
T. No decision of any court of last
resort can be found in this country
holding that such a law is unconstitu-
tional because it empowers the COM
mission to enact rules and regulations
for it's enforcement that shall have
the force and effect of law. There
are many decisions to the contrary.
s. No decision of any court of last
resort can be found in this country
that holds such law unconstitution-
al because it authorizes the commits
sion to enact rules for the proper
classification of the civil service Of
the state. There are many decisions
to the contrary.
9. No decision of any court OF last
resort in this country can be found
that holds a statute such as is under
consideration and provides for the
punishment for it's violation or the
violation of the rules enacted for its
enforcement as is provided in this
statute unconstitutional on the ground
that such punishment is cruel and I'M
usual.
10. Even if this portion of this stat
ute should be held Illegal as provid-
ing cruel and unusual punishment, no
decision can be found of any court of
last resort in this country holding
that such illegal part would affect In
the least The valid parts of the act.
The aims" and the "outs."
r. M. Bashford argued against the
law. He prefaced his address by de-
claring that the suit was not brought
for the purpose of attacking the con-
stitutionality of the law. 1t was
brought merely for the purpose OF OBJ
tanning what an important public OF
fiasr believed were his legal rights,
rights of his department, all for
the proper conduct of his important
Office. After the first step had been
taken in the case, when the brief had
been prepared dealing with that part
of the case which concerned the ap-
plication Of the law to the department
Of banking, it was determined to be