People ex rel. Board of Education v. Utah Commissioners

7 Utah 279
CourtUtah Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1891
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 7 Utah 279 (People ex rel. Board of Education v. Utah Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People ex rel. Board of Education v. Utah Commissioners, 7 Utah 279 (Utah 1891).

Opinion

!ZaNE, C. J.:

'This was an application based on an affidavit of Eich-ard W. Young, a member of the board of education of Salt Lake City, for a writ of prohibition against .the defendants, prohibiting them from publishing a notice of election to decide upon the issuing and sale of bonds to raise money to purchase school-house sites, and for buying and building school-houses, and from appointing judges to hold such election, and from receiving the returns thereof. The district court held that, upon the facts stated in the affidavit, the law did not authorize the issuance of the writ, and the plaintiff appealed to -this court. The fifteenth article of an act of the legislature providing for a uniform system of free schools throughout the Territory, in force March 13, 1890, makes the school trustees of each city of the first and second class, together with the mayor thereof, a body [281]*281corporate, and invests them with the powers deemed necessary to establish and maintain common schools in the districts embraced in such cities. The city of Salt Lake belongs to the first class. This board is in terms authorized to call elections at which to determine whether bonds shall be issued, to give the notices prescribed to appoint judges to hold such elections, and to receive and canvass the returns thereof. Notwithstanding the provisions of the law referred to, the defendants issued the notice of the election mentioned in the application, appointed judges to hold the same, and required the returns thereof to be made to them as such board. Had that body the power to do so? To answer this question it becomes necessary to interpret section' 9 of an act of congress approved March 22, 1882, known as the “Edmunds Law.” That section is as follows:

“ That all the registration and election offices of every description in the Territory of Utah are hereby declared vacant, and each and every duty relating to the registration of voters, the conduct of elections, the receiving or rejection of votes, and the canvassing and return of the same, and the issuing of certificates or other evidence of election in said Territory, shall, until other provisions be made by the legislative assembly of said Territory, as is hereafter by this section provided, be performed under the existing laws of the United States and said Territory by proper persons, who shall be appointed to execute such offices, and to perform such duties, by a board of five persons to be appointed by the president, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, not more than three of whom shall be members of one political party, and a majority of whom shall be a quorum. The members of said board so appointed by the president shall each receive a salary at the rate of $5,000 per annum, and shall continue in office until the legislative assembly [282]*282of said Territory shall make provision for filling said offices, as herein authorized. The secretary of the Territory shall be secretary of said board, and keep a journal of its proceedings, and attest the action of said board under this section. The canvass and return of all votes at elections in said Territory, for members of the legislative .assembly thereof, shall also be returned 'to said board, which shall canvass all such returns, and issue certificates of election to those persons who, being eligible for such elections, shall appear to have been lawfully elected, which certificates shall be the only evidence of the right of such persons to sit in such assembly: Provided, that the said board of five persons shall not exclude any person otherwise eligible to vote from the polls on account of any opinion such person may entertain on the subject of bigamy or polygamy, nor shall they refuse to count any such vote on account of the opinion of the person casting it on the subject of bigamy or polygamy- but each house of such assembly, after its organization, shall have power to decide upon the elections and qualifications of its members; and at or after the first meeting of such legislative assembly, whose members shall have been elected and returned according to the provisions of this act, said legislative assembly may make such laws, conformable to the organic act of said Territory, and not inconsistent with other laws of the United States, as it shall deem proper concerning the filling of the offices in said Territory declared vacant by this act.”

The connection of the provisions of this section bearing upon the question under consideration will be more apparent if other portions of it are omitted. Without such parts the section would read: “All registration and election offices * ' * * are declared vacant, and * * * every duty relating to registration, * * * the conduct of elections, the receiving of [283]*283votes, their canvass and return, and the issuing of * * * evidence of election, shall, until * * * provision * * * made by the legislature as by this section provided, be performed under existing laws, * * * by persons appointed by * * * a board of five persons, * * * who “ shall continue in office until the legislature * * * shall make provision for filling said offices, as herein authorized. * * * Said legislature may make such laws * * * as it shall deem proper concerning the filling of the offices declared * * * vacant by this act.” This section declared all the election offices of the Territory vacant, and provided that the duties belonging to them should be discharged by persons appointed by the board, until legislators chosen at an election held by such persons should enact laws by which they could be filled. The board was authorized to appoint persons to execute the offices made vacant by the first clause of the section and none other. In the use of the language, “all the registration and election offices of every description in the Territory of Utah are hereby declared vacant,” did congress intend only such as were then in existence, or did it also mean new election offices, created by a legislature chosen by an election held by persons appointed by the board provided in the section? Such a legislature, eight years after the ninth section took effect, provided for the creation of the corporation called the “ Board of Education of Salt Lake City,” and gave it power to call elections, to vote on the issuance and sale of bonds, and to appoint judges thereof, and to receive and canvass the returns. Such board, and the judges appointed by it, were given ^11 authority necessary to such elections. If the power given and the duties specified with respect to such elections constitute election offices, then they are new ones, and [284]*284of a corporation brought into existence eight years after the act of congress in question took effect.

At the time the act of coDgress under consideration took effect, election offices existed in the various counties and municipalities in this Territory. A portion of the language of the first sentence of the ninth section, considered alone, would indicate an intent to empower the board to appoint persons to execute the duties of election offices that might afterwards be made as well as those then existing. But the other language connected with this, found in the section declaring the offices vacant, and giving the board the power to appoint until other provision be made by the legislature for filling the offices declared vacant, and requiring the performance to be under existing laws, should be considered with it.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Inf. Barrett v. Imhoff
238 S.W. 122 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1922)
Longmire v. State
171 S.W. 1165 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Utah 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-board-of-education-v-utah-commissioners-utah-1891.