Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-04-28
Doubts legal Status of Successor Cummings

whether the people were deceived.
Whatever the law may be, as q mat
ter Of fact, and as a matter Of truth,
they were actually defrauded, misled,
and deceived by the plain language of
the resolve which submitted to them
the amendment and the question upon
which they were to vote. An interpre-
tation Of the amendment which leads
to this result Is not to be encouraged
and is not favored by any rule of con-
struction unless the language in the
amendment is so clear and so plain
and so free from ambiguity as to adj
NIT of no construction whatever. And
as shown by the opinion. itself, in con-
STRUNG the words governor and coun-
ell" out Of the amendment, the language
of the amendment is not clear and
therefore is subject to Interpretation
and should be given an Interpretation,
that will make the amendment har-
monious with other parts of the con-
stitution and give expression to the
voice OF the people as they had a
right to interpret the meaning of its
language. 1t will be but play upon
words to- say that the people, as o
| matter OF Sact, did not understand
that they We're voting for an amend
ment to the Constitution exactly as
stated in the question.
Another rule OF construction that
is completely overlooked Is that
| when q constitutional amendment is
proposed in derogation of the rights
| Of person or property it shall be con-
strued strictly in favor of such
rights. In this case the amendment
was intended and properly intended
to enable the Governor and Council
| to remove sheriff, an officer elect
| ed by the people, if he was found
unfaithful in the discharge of his
duties and to place upon him the
stigma of removal.
"Who steals my purse steals trash
but he that filches from me my good
name, robs me of that which en-
| riches not him but makes me poor
| indeed"
amendment was to produce this re-
suit. 1t therefore should not be con-
| strued in favor of the right of a
single individual to condemn and re-
move the sheriff as results in the
I present case but it. should be con-
| strued strictly in favor of the indi-
vidual right, If any construction is
permissible. 1t badly seems possible
that either the legislature or the peo-
pie ever intended such to be the i'm
port of the amendment in question.
Nor does it seeI- from a review of
the cases and the rules of construc-
ton, that there is any hard and fast
rule which requires the interpreta-
ton of the opinion. For the fore
going reasons. / am still in doubt
with reference to the right of the
Governor to remove the sheriff under
the present action of the Governor
and Council. Ii he has not the right
and 1t is certainly not established by
! the opinion of the justices, then the
prospective sheriff, whoever he may
be, will be subject to the same perils
| that / suggested in my last commun-
ication and the title of his Office can
be contested by any person against
whose property he makes attachment
or against whom he makes an arrest
While the defacto rule may apply to
a sheriff In dealing with the public
it can not apply in his dealings in
private relations. II he is not sher-
Il if, legally appointed, he will have
no more right to serve precept
than any layman.'