Rensselaer Republican, Volume 21, Number 38, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 23 May 1889 — THE STATE CAPITAL. [ARTICLE]

THE STATE CAPITAL.

Professor John Collett made formal demand on Professor S. 8. Gorby for the State Geologist’s office, Tuesday morning, As wasexpected.thelatter refused to surrender the office. Then the two rivals sat down and had a long friendly chat about, geelogy. Professor Collett will probably begin legal proceedings within a day or two, for the purpose of having the entire question set at rest. The St#te Board of Education adjourned, Thursday, after several days’ work. The text book law was not brought up at this meeting, as nothing connected with it can be done furtl er until the 28th inst., when bids from publishers will be opened. Fourteen applicants for State license were examined, and nine the requisite grade to receive it They are W. S. Almond, Alpheus K. Baldwin, Mary Best, Emma R. Chandler, Conrad W. Conway, Thomas L. Harris, Francis L. Harris. Eva Malone and John R. Sherrick. Of forty-one applicants for eight-yea r licenses, twenty were successful. There names are Margaret A. Arnold, Fred. M. DoWey, Charles A. Dugan, Alired W. Duncan, Tilla G. Ewing, John Havey, William B. Jackways, Titus E. Kinsey, Mattie E. Lowe, Watson Nicholson, Ryland Ratliff, Charles W. Sehleppy, Clara Weir, Horace G. Woody, Josephine Fielding, Theodore Huntington, Harvey Lucys, Florence Markley. Thomas M. Merica and Bertha E. Sweeney. Professor John Collett, appointed State Geologist by Governor Hovey, Thursday afternoon instituted quo war ranto proceedings in the Marion Circuit Court against 8. S. Gorby, elected!© the same position by the Legislature. The case will be gotten into the Supreme Court and settled as soon as possible, Assessor Thomas Quill and Deputy Assessor Tyler, of this township, were indicted by the Grand Jury, Thursday, for obtaining money under false pretenses. It is charged that thev kept several “dummies” on the pay roll, the salaries of whom they divided among themselves. The State Treasurer is preparing to advertise for bids for the school fund loan authorized by the Fifty-sixth General Assembly. There is no question of the jconstitutionality of this act. The loan is. so big that it throws the troublesome one which the German Savings Bank, of New York, has been dallying with into the shade. The advertisement will call for bids for a loan, all to be taken at once, of $3,9.5,000. Bids will be opened July 1. The Supreme Court Saturday decided the case of Alvin P. Hovey, Governor vs. The State ex rel John W. Riley. The case is the one in which Riley, elected a trustee of the Blind Institute by the Legislature, brought suit in the Clarion Circuit Court to compel the Governor to issue to him a aommission. Judge Howland of the Circuit Court decided in favor of the plaintiff and the Governor appealed to the Supreme Court That tribunal, as will be seen, affirmed the decision of the lower, court The opinion was written Jjy Chief Justice Elliott, and is concurred in by Judge Mitchell and Olds but not by Judges Coffey and Berkshire. The opinion declares that all of the governing officers of all of the Benevolent institutions of the State may be appointed by the Legislature. It is said that, by practical expontion. growing out of the tong continued practice, the Constitution has been so construed as to vest in the Legislature the power to appoint this class of officers. Many authorities are cited to show the eflect of practical exposition, and it is said: “Practical exposition establishes a principle. Particular instances fall within general rules, and practical exposition establishes general rules for the government of particular instances. The science of jurisprudence is not made ub or particular instances, nor can it be so constructed, for, if it be a science at all, it must be composed of principles. To us it is clear that what we have here to do is to find what principle has been established and under that jprineiple bring the particular instance. The eflect of the long continued practice is to establish the principle that the Legislature has power to appoint the governing officers of all the benevolent institutions, or, at its option, authorize their appointment. It is narrowing the effect of this practical exposition much beyond what reason and authority gratify to hold that it applies to some of the institutions and not to the others. We can not believe that the general assembly may rightfully appoint the Tiustees of the Hospital for the Insane and yet have no authority to appoint those of the institution for the education of the deaf and dumb.” It is also said in the opinion: “The office is a peculiar one and one which it is evident the Constitution did not intend should be filled by the electors of the Btate at a general election. It is, as it seems to us, an office whicn may properly be regarded as within tLacontroi of the General Assmbly, the control belonging to that body as an incident of the right to establish and maintain benevolent institutions. Officers of the class under immediate mention are not such as every elector may justly claim a right to hold solely on the ground that he is a voter and all voters are entitled to hold office, but they are offices which the Legislature may restrict to competent persons bv prescribing what shall be the qualifications of those who enter them. It is within the authority of the Legislature to require that the officers of this class shall be selected from different political parties, or that they shall be persons of peculiar skill and experience. It may, indeed, provide for the appointment of women to this class of offices, as has been done in some instances. If we are wrong in affirming that in this class of offices the Legislature may prescribe particular aualifleations, then the practice of all le departments has been in many instances a persistent violation of the Constitution.” * Judges Coffey and Berkshire stated that they did not concur in this opinion, but wrote no dissenting one. The points wherein they differed from the majority concurring are not knowh therefore. The dispute between Professor Collett and Professor Gorby in re. lation to the office of Chief of the Department of Geology is in no wise affected by this decision, as it is entirely distinct asto the prinnple involved.