The evening times., 1911-03-20

tions ana employment on the police
force ana In the Are department by
requiring that all officers and en-
ployees be selected from the two lead
ing political parties found in the
cities: -/%-
1T 10 well known that the. menu.
bers Of probably . half dozen
political parties reside in these
cities ana that . largo number
OF citizens who belong to no par
ticular political party reside
therein. All of these persons are
disqualified for positions or en-
ployment in either Of the depart .
ments named II It IL competent
for the legislature to require as
test for position or employment
under the provisions Of the act
under confederation membership =.
in political party or -organixa-
tion. It 10 difficult to understand
why a religious or any other test
may be made. We are Of the
opinion that in so far as the act
creates residence qualification
or prescribes a political test it
contravenes the constitution. It
is not only in violation of the
spirit but Of the letter Of section
% article !. Upon a question 80
clear 1t would hardly seem nee
essary to cite authorities, but sec
Cooley constitutional limitations,
fifth edition 4S3, Brown vs.. Hay
ward. 4 Heisk 357. Leithman W.
Commonwealth, 20 Va. 1856. At
torney general VS.. board, ETC., IS
Am. Rep. 675.
Section % of the Indiana consti-
tuition reads as follows: "The general
assembly shall not grant to any cit
izen or class Of citizens privileges or
immunities which upon the same
terms shall not equally belong to all
citizens" almost the exact language
Of thst part Of section 20 Of our con-
stitution and precisely the same In
substance and meaning.
In the case of Rogers VS.. common
council Of Buffalo, 1923. N. Y, 1856, the
supreme court of New York in COM
menting on the case Of attorney gen.
trail vs.. city of Detroit, So Mich, 213,
supra, said:
The provision in that case was
for the appointment Of election
inspectors consisting Of two per-
sons from each of the two lead
ing political parties and it was
held to be a violation of the con-.
stitution Of Michigan. There the
law recognized . two political
parties, and made It a necessity
for appointment to be made from
and confined to members of these
parties. An individual not a men,
Der of either was not eligible to
| appointments.
This is practically what house bill
No. 271 provides when 1t says that
"the members of the board of control
shall be three electors of the state
two of whom shall be of the political
party having the plurality and one OF
the political party having the next
highest number Of members in the
legislative assembly," BY this act II
means that two shadl be appointed
from the Republican party and one
from the Democratic party, and the
representatives Of all other political
parties in the state are, disqualified
This is providing q political test and
is in conflict with section 211. of thu
constitutions, and It is granting priv.
ileges to members Of the Republican
and Democratic parties that are with.
held from the representatives of othel
political parties.
This law is an exact copy of ar
Iowa law. except that the lows Law
provides that no more than two mem.
bers Of the board shall belong to any
one political party This provision II
the Iowa law is non-partisan mea.
sure and is constitutional. It does
not deprive the appointing power o.
appointing any citizen otherwis,
qualified to the office. It does no
say that two members of the boart
shall belong that one political party
It simply says that no more thar
two members shall tselong to on,
party, and while such laws are con
| stitutional, the courts hold then
directory only.
While the provisions in this act re-
quiring the political test are uncon
stitutional and void, such provision.
do not violate the whole act. It i,
a we'll recognized rule Of construc
ton that If. parts of law which ar,
unconstitutional can be striker out o.
] ignored and still leave a good Law
with all the necessary proviBions 70,
its enforcement, the law is valid IL