Evening journal., 1915-04-01

rilla and begin taking it today.
was a State child labor inspector in
office, whose term was two years.
In view of the foregoing facts you
address to me the following questions
and ask my opinion thereon:
Question No. l. Does the fact that
Mr.. Grantland was a member of the
Legislature for the last two terms in
any way disqualify him as State child
labor inspector under the child labor
law as passed at the session of Legis-
lature of 1913?
Question No. 2. Does the amend
ment 1891, Section 81, Revised Code.
which changes the appointing power
and the term of service for the reap
pointments without otherwise chang
ing the authority of the commission,
the name of the Office and the salary
of the Office. constitute a temporary
adjustment of the office of state child
labor inspector. or does this amend
ment in effect continue the Office of
State child labor inspector so far as
the official position is concerned?
Question No. 3. If the act of the
last Legislature in amending Section
81 of said child labor law did amount
10 temporary adjustment of the
official position of the State child
labor inspector. is Mr.. Grantland
thereby disqualified from serving in
that capacity?
Question No. A. In case Mr. Grant
land should assume the duties of the
office of State child labor inspector
and at some later date legal action
and court decision would result in dis
, qualifying him and requiring the
labor commission Of Delaware to
make a reappointment to fill said va
cancy. would the acts OF Mr.. Grant
/ land between the time of assuming
such duties and the court decision be
declared invalid or would said acts
during said period be as legal as
though the position had been filled
during said period by fully qualified
inspector?
The Constitution Of this State pro-
vides in Section IA. Article II, thereof
as follows:
mo senator or representative shall.
during the time for which he shall
have been elected. be appointed 10 any
civil office under this State which
shall have been created. or the emol-
uments, of which shall have been in
i creased. during such time"
i In order to clear the ground of two
preliminary questions I wish to state
that in my opinion the office of State
child labor Inspector is a civil Of
fee" within the meaning of said sec
ton. Further / should say that / can
see nothing in the legislation in
| question which increases the emolu-
ments of the office assuming that
the same office exists. which question
J discuss hereinafter).
In view of the opinion which I am
rendering you it is not necessary to
answer your Question No. 4.
Your other three questions really
come down TO the one question o.
whether or not Mr. Grantland is eliei-
BILE in view of the above stated facts
to the office of State child labor in
spector II is clear 10 my mind that
the fact that Mr.. Grantland was a
member of the Legislature of the year
1913, when the child labor law was
Originally enacted. does not disquslity
him. for the reason that any appoint
ment or election TO the office he might
now receive would not be during the
time for which he was elected to
serve as a member of the Legislature
commencing 1912 and ending at the
general election 1914.
I now approach the most difficult
question. Namely. whether or not
the fact that Mr. Grantland is now
serving a term in the Legislature
commencing November. 1914, and end
ing i'm November. 1916, during which
time the legislation in question was
passed. serves TO render him inelig-
ible to the office of State child labor
inspector.
| should say first that for guidance
in constituting such a constitutional
provision as our Section IA. Article
II. the rule is that such provision is
TO be narrowly construed in favor
of eligibility. Courts lay down this
principle.
II the legislation in 1915 created
this office, then unquestionably Mr.
Grantland is disqualified. The inquiry
therefore, IL. was the Office of State
child labor inspector created by the
legislation Of 1915? Specifically. did
the legislation OF 1915 undertake 10
create the office. or did it simply
adopt an office already existing, max
ing changes with respect thereto?
The answer TO this question is no
entirely free from difficulty. ! shall no
attempt 10 give you lengthy state
mcnt of reasons leading me TO the con
clusion which / have reached. II seem
TO me clear that the session OF 1915, b.
the legislation in question, clearl,
manifested an intention both TO chang
the pcrsonnel of the old commission
giving it another name. and TO rcmov
the inspector serving under it. So ia
as persons are concerned. therefore, th
legislation of 1915 undertakes to repca
so 10 speak, the former law respecting
the INSPECTOR; but what was its inten
ton vii respect TO the Office of Stat
child labor Inspector An Office Is L
he distinguished from its incumbent, tn
officer. for il has been said that lin lega
idea an Office is an entity. and ma
exist in fact. though it be without a
incumbent"
So that il may very we'll be that "a
officer is put out OF Office while yet th
office itself remains. 70 say that a
1 Loo