Evening journal., 1911-01-12
COMMON SENSE
and THE LAW
Layman DiSSentS From the
View Of Former City
Solicitor Barman

Editor Of THE EVENING JOURNAL
I see it alleged upon the authority
Of ex-City Solicitor Harman, the
there has not been legal city cleo
tion held i'm this city since the pro-
mitigation Of the new State Consti-
tuition.
Can that be true?
Holding what may be a layman 5
view of the law. which of course, may
be all wrong, | doubt a. ! have heard
this matter broached upon several
occasions, and my memo-y of the
basis of the opinion expressed by Mr..
Harman is that the new State. Con-
stitution and the city charter do not
agree as TO the qualifications of vot-
ers, the former having abolished the
taxpaying qualification in vogue prior
to 1897, and the latter retaining u.
Now as / regard these two legal in
struments tho city charter as the
creature of the State Assembly is sub
ordinate. The State--the Assembly
could not impose conditions upon
municipal voters contrary to the SUI
preme organic law of the State.
Hence, provisions of the city imposing
qualifications for voting that have
been abolished in the making and
PRONUNCIATION of a new Constitution,
are no longer In force. The State
Constitution now provides a uniform
qualification fof all voters. for all the
Offices to be voted for or hereafter to
be voted for. Does that not include
all the city officers voted for since the
promulgaton Of the new Constitution?
II doubtless is true that there has
been no amendment of the city char
ter to make Il conform to the new
constitutional provisions for voting.
but tho new Constitution continued
tue city charter IN force, I'm ali par
ticulars except those chatter pro-
visions that conflicted with the new
State law. The charter so recognized
and continued provided for a city
government, and the Constitution pro-
yided in specifying the uniform quail
ficatiOns for voters at all elections
for all Oflicers-for the election of city
officers. Is it not reasonable to sup
pose that when statutes fail-be-
comes obsolete through constitutional
amendment or legislative neglecr,
plain provisions of the Constitution
become operative? In other words Is
IL reasonably supposable that the alb
sence of statute law nullifies both The
spirit and letter of the State Consti-
tuition?
Il is said that the law is common
sense applied to government. Is that
t-uey To lay mind the common
sense of the present alleged muddle
of our city government, is that IL is
more imaginary than real. As long
D ~ ha. .ftsff - ~. lra.4
/ Constitution is respected and obeyed
elections are legal, and resulting Gov
ernment is de iure
Lawyers may hold otherwise, out
lawyers law is not always common
sense.
To layman il might appear that,
according to common sense. our pres
ent city government is government
dejure. Let us suppose that the Leg
islature that attempted TO enact the
alleged law making elections come
four years apart, and the terms OF
the officers so elected to continue for
two years, had made no such attempt,
would not the municipal election law
In force previous to that session of
the Legislature have continued in
/ force? That seems TO be a plain COM
/ mon sense proposition.
II 1t holds. the election of June.
1909 was legal
The court decided that the attempt
TO amend the law relative to muni-
cipal elections and the terms of the
officers elected. is null. II that an
/ plies to the body Of the alleged en-
actment, 1t also applies to the section
IN which It was attempted TO repeal
an acts or parts of acts Inconsistent
with the act the court declared nm
constitutional-not was enacted.
nothing repealed.
In that case why does not the law
under which the election of 1907 was
held, apply TO the election of 1909?
The law of 1907 was not repealed
The Supreme Court of the State has
said so. The court said that I'm saw
ing that the alleged law of 1908 was
null and void. II the attempt to enact
the new law and repeal the old law
was null and void. why does not the
old law remain valid aud in force7
This layman's variety of common
sense holds that the old law is sin
IN force and that the city election of
1903 was an election dejure.
Common Sense.
Wilmington, Jau. II 1911.