OCR Text |
Show THE NEXT MOVE. Now that a list of the Governor's appointees for twelve counties has been published, the public are naturally curious to know what will be the next move. The man who was appointed probate judge for Salt Lake county, has tendered his bond and applied for the office. He received the discouraging information that the office which he sought was not vacant. His bond was declined, and his application for the office refused. If any appointee of the Governor really means to make a struggle for the office for which he has been designated, his proper course, as we understand it, is this: He will first make application for the office and tender the bond required by law. On being repulsed, he will next apply to the district court for a writ of quo warranto, requiring the present incumbent to appear before the court and show cause why he should not be required to give up his office and cease to exercise its functions. If the defendant pleads that there is no vacancy in the office, but that he holds over until his successor is duly elected and qualified, as would undoubtedly be the case, the question whether or not the Hoar Amendment supercedes or conflicts with the Territorial law which provides for the holding over of officers until their successors are duly elected and qualified, will be fairly brought before the court for adjudication. There are grave doubts as to the constitutional right of Congress to invest any man with the extraordinary power to appoint all the elective officers in an entire commonwealth, without regard to the wishes of the people. When Congress did this they certainly contravened the theory of the constitution whether or not they violated any of its express or necessarily implied provisions. It is not unlikely that one or more test cases will be selected and carried through the courts to the Supreme Court at Washington. In the meantime it appears to be the determined policy of the present incumbents not to give up their offices until by law compelled to. |