Evening journal., 1917-08-01

James il. Kane and Timothy ]. Mooney
was void.
1T will be observed" said the
court that at the end of the second
paragraph of the section occur the
words. Provided however, that II
the said lists of names are not tur-
nished as aforesaid. then any in mat
event the Governor shall appoint SUIT
able persons having the qualifications
Drovided by this section" 10 VIII De
also observed that after providing I'M
the fourth paragraph for the appoint
ments by the Govsrnor OF Depart
ment of Elections for the City OF VII
mingon the statute az that place
makes no provision for appointments
in the event that no lists OF names are
presented by the committees.
This omission. it Is claimed, tmakes
what is known in the law as a 'Casua
omissus which the authorities /
agree. connot be supplied by the
court
1T is argued by the petitioners that I
the Legislature intended that the pro- 1
vlsio at the end Of paragraph OF
section should apply only to the !
antecedent words because (l) the
proyiso Is unambiguous. complete and
appropriately located; and 90 the
act provides al the proper place. that
/ IN the event the COMMITTEES fail TO pre-
sent lists OF names for registration
officers the Governor and the Depart
ment of Elections should have power
l TO appoint: and n Il was intended that
the proviso in question should apply
to the appointment OF members OF the
Department OF Elections, IL would
have been placed in the paragraph
that authorized their appointment or
subsequent thereto.
THE respondents. with equal conf
dence. insist that the proviso APP
plies and has reference not alone 70
the paragraph of the section TO which
Il is the concluding clause, but also
to the paragraph having TO do with
the appointment Of - Department
OF Elections
IT IS the duty OF the court TO de-
termine the extent. meaning and ap-
plicability OF the proviso in question.
and Il will be OF some assistance TO
bear in mind the general principles
OF statutory construction that have
been already stated, as we'll as the
rules We are about 10 state.
1T may be that the Legislature
failed 70 place the provlso in the most
, logical aad appropriate place IN the
! statute. but we, are clearly OF the
. opinion for the reasons stated, that
the words OF the prOviso we're intended
= 10 apply 10 al lists that the com.
I mittees were required TO furnish 10 the
Governor; and Il makes no difference
p therefore. where the proviso was
placed In the section because Il must
IS be construed as TO carry out sucf
y legislative intent.
e an determining this question, tbs
u Court Is not unmindful that the pur
e pose OF all interpretations is the as
a certcinment OF the intention OF tn
le law makers; that statute must move
al be he'd 20 be unconstitutional OF in
operative IL Il can be avoided that III
~ Legislature intends 10 impart 20 II
n enactments such meaning as wi
IN render them operative and effective
s. and that the latter judicial decision
g show that the courts are more del
in gent than they once we're TO find a wa
~ under the law, 10 susta n rather tina
% defeat acts OF Login,at,1o.
re, The court Is clearly OF the OPT
10 ion. after careful consideration OF q
&C. entire enactment, including its co
NNANr Aal- AaANNH a. "An "NH"AN 49, -
ist evident intent and purpose OF the az
he that the prOviso should be treated
ne an independent provision relatii
he equally 90 paragraphs two and four
ne Section 2. both OF which deal with u
oh method OF appointment OF registratl'
III officers.
"If the proviso is treated as an j
dependent provision. II appropriate
mt applies to paragraph four as well
20 paragraph two, and carries out Il
OF manifest purpose Of the Legislature.
ire such being the courts constru
an ton OF the provlso. Il follows IN
Sc. there is no scasus omissus' as confen
as ed bv the petitioners. and that the a
ter is not inoperative on that ground"
he Judge conrad's Opposite View.
he Judge Conrad IN his dissentii
ice opinion. dealing with the way IN whit
wn the members of the special Depai
aw ment of Electrions were appoint'
nt said
The "The contest as TO the constitute
icy slity of the act of the General Asset
an bly, involved in the case now befo
1t this court narrows down to but o
by point. T. e.. whether the act by EXPIRE
ers enactment, OF by reasonable and PFC
eg' er Implication. gave authority
the governor 20 appoint the memb'
eti- OF the Department OF Elections
no the City OF Wilmington. In the "
mt that has been done.
rse There can be no doubt but q
IL the act intended 10 give proper
)m- thority 20 the governor and to ms
py said Department Of Elections the M
ach or leading fundamentally for no
ing the election designed by said q
ION 'The record discloses that the CO
aue mittee for license did moi furn
'es- a list OF names Is suggested by
'ele foregoing paragraph and the Govern
.hal not having such list appointed
ties persons of his own choosing. IL y
ave be noticed that no provis on was mi
ocal' for appointment in the event OF y
'ore not being furnished. This % the "a
gis- and unfortunate omission ot the acl
mat ITO my mind the act Is fatally
and fective in Ns failure 10 empower
pro- Governor to name members OF
that Department OF Elections in Wilm
the ton in the event Of either or the q
act. mittees falling or refusing 70 sub
tees a list of names from which the
b IN requires such mcTQbers shall
out choosen.A This omission OF dehc' G
nit can only be corrected by the Gene
arty Assembly the court being power
here 10 supply the omission. The act IN
'om- for falling TO provide for the conc
pre- of the election in the City OF WI nm
aim ton Is rendered imperative and
lere- as far as the election in the Cit
mi -. 80. Hn nanNnTnnn