Case Name: The State of Wisconsin ex rel. Ezra L. Varney vs. William W. Wyman
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1850-01
Citations: 2 Chand. 5
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State of Wisconsin ex rel. Ezra L. Varney vs. William W. Wyman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Chandler
Volume: 2
Pages: 5–13

Head Matter:
The State of Wisconsin ex rel. Ezra L. Varney vs. William W. Wyman.
A County Treasurer elected under the provisions of the Territorial laws of Wisconsin, oould hold his office only during the time prescribed by them. The adoption of the constitution did not repeal, qualify, of annul any of the Territorial laws relating to that office.
The act of the Legislature of the Slate, which went into effect on the first day of May, 1849, relating to officers under the constitution, and amongst such, County Treasurers, was in operative force ' at the time of the relator’s election, and under it, he, by his election, became rightfully the Treasurer under. the constitution and • laws of the State.
This was an information in the nature of a quo warranto, by the relator Yarney, to possess himself of the office of Treasurer 'of the County of .Dane, together with the ■books, papers, and appendages thereof, as against the respondent Wyman. It appeared by the papers, that the relator was elected Treasurer of the County at the election in the year 1849. It also appeared that the respondent was elected at the general election in 1848 to the same office, and qualified according to law. That the relator, after his election in 1849, took the oath of office, 'but that the respondent refused to invest the relator with the books and papers belonging to the office, or to give place to him as Treasurer, on the ground that at the time of the election of the relator, there was no law in force authorizing the election of Treasurer.
The opinion of the Court clearly exhibits the basis of the decision.
sibbott & Cothren, for relator.
Collins & Clark, for respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Whiton, J.
The object of this proceeding is to obtain possession of the pffice of Treasurer of Dane County. The relator claims the office by virtue of an election, and it is admitted that he was duly elected to the office at the general election, held oh. Tuesday, succeeding the first Monday in November 1849, if by the laws then in force, a lawful election of County Treasurer, could take place. It is further admitted that the relator took the proper oath, and executed the bond required by law, within the time prescribed by Sec, 138 of Chapt. 10., of the Revised Statutes, and further that he demanded possession of the books and papers belonging to the office, before commencing this proceeding.
The claim of the relator is resisted by the respondent, who was elected to the office at the general election in 1848, on the ground that there was no law in force, authorizing an election of County Treasurers, at the time when the relator claims to have been elected.
Various acts of the Legislature of the Territory and State of Wisconsin, and the Constitution of the State, were referred to in the argument, all of which I will notice. The act of the Legislature of the Territory, which took effect in July 1839, (Stat. Wis. Ter.,'page 97,) provided for the election of County Treasurers annually. The same act prescribed their powers and duties, and fixed their compensation. The next act bearing upon the subject was passed by the Legislature of the Territory in 1841. This act does not alter the act of 1839, except to provide that the term of service of the County treasurers, when in office, should expire on the first. Monday of January, then next, and that the term of service of those afterwards to be elected, should commence on the first Monday in January, in each year'. (Session Laws, 1841, page 33.) The next is an act passed in 1841, in relation to township and county government. This act only applied to. those counties which adopted it, and like the act of 1839, provided for the annual election of County Treasurers. (Town Act, page 72.) The next act bearing upon the. subject, was passed in 1842. (Session Laws, 1842, page 43.) This act merely declares the County Officers elected at the preceding general election, to be in office from the first Monday in January, 1842, and provides that the tenure of office of those officers elected, or to be elected, in pursuance of the provisions of the act in relation to township and county government, should not be affected by it. These are all the acts of the Legislature of the Territory, bearing upon the subject, which I have been able to find; and, taken together, they provide for the election of County Treasurers, annually, and for their going into office on the first Monday of January in each year. They prescribe the powers and duties of those officers, and fix their compensation. By virtue of their provisions, County Treasurers were elected, and held their offices until the constitution of the State was adopted in 1848.
That instrument contains a provision upon the subject of County Officers, which in connection with subsequent acts of the Legislature, the respondent contends, renders the election of the relator illegal. The clause of the constitution referred to, is the 7th section of the schedule, and is as follows. " All county, precinct and town-fhip officers, shall continue to hold their respective offi ces, unless removed by the competent authority, until'the Legislature shall in conformity'with the previsions of this constitution, provide for the holding of elections, to fill isuch offices, respectively." The counsel for the respondent contended, in' the argument of the case, that this provision had the effect to repeal the acts of the Legislature of the Territory, upon the subject of County Treasurers, -or at least to create a'new tenure for the office. I am 'clearly of opinion that it cannot have the effect to repeal 'the acts of the Legislature in question.
•The State Constitution repealed none of the laws of the 'Territory, except 'such as were repugnant'to it, and this '•clause of the Constitution,'and the acts of the Legislature referred'to,' "may' well stand together; the'latter •modified only so far as the term of service of those who ¡held the offices vat the time when the constitution was •adopted, were concerned. To admit that the constitution repealed those acts,' would be to hold that after the adoption of .the former, there was no law in existence, which defined the powers with' which these officers were '•clothed, or the dalias which they were to discharge, and I cannot think that by any-iust rule of construction, such an effect can be given .to-it. Nor do I think thafa new tenure was created for'these offices.
The provision in the Constitution applies' only to those officers who were in office at the time of its adoption, and does not establish any tenure for those who were af-terwards elected. Those then in office 'were to hold their offices until the Legislature made provision for filling theta by election; but'in no other respect did the constitution interfere with the tenure of these offices, as established by the previous acts of the Legislature. It may Well be imagined that the framers of the Constitution, supposed that when the Legislature .provided for filling these offices by election, they would also specify the term the incumbents were to serve. If this had been done, no difficulty would have arisen, but it was .omitted. The provision for filling these offices was made by an act passed at the first Session of the Legislature after the Constitution was adopted; by virtue of it the respondent was elected; and if the laws of the territory in relation to the office were not repealed, nor the tenure of the office changed by the Constitution, except so far as those persons were concerned, who filled the offices when the Constitution went into- effect, it follows that he was elected for the term as fixed, by the laws .of the Territory, which wc have seen was one year only.
There remains but one other subject of enquiry; and that is, whether any law' was in existence at the time the relator claims to have been elected, by which his election, was .authorized. There can be no doubt on the subject.. The,Legislature passed, an act which went into effect on the first day of May, 1849, which provides, that there shall be chosen at the general election in each year, so many of the officers named in the act " as are by law, to he elected in such year," and which names County Treasurers are among the number. (Rev. Stat. Chapt. 6, 8ec, 3.)
Now, if the respondent was. elected for .one year, the election of his successor was proper.and necessary, at the general election in 1849. It can make no difference that, the Legislature passed an. act .which took effect on the, first day of May, 1849, providing that County Treasurers shall hold their offices for. two years, as.this provision was, clearly intended, to apply only to those ejected after the law went into effect. Nor can Sec. 85 of chapter 6, of the Revised Statutes* which was referred to in the argument for the respondent, at all affect the question. That provides for the election of all county officers whose election is not otherwise specially provided for at the general election in 1850, and at the general election in every second year afterwards. Now, if the view I have taken of the subject is correct, the election of County Treasurers was provided for at the general election in 1840, by Sec. 3 of chapter 6, of the Revised Statutes, which went into effect on the first day of May, 1849, and as the Legislature have provided by an act, which also went into effect on the first day of May, 1849, that -County Treasurers shall hold their offices for two years, it follows that no election of County Treasurers can take place until the year 1851, except for the purpose of filling vacancies. It necessarily follows, from the view -I have taken of the subject, that the relator was rightfully elected, for the term fixed by law, at the time 'of his election, which is two years.