People ex rel. Clay v. Bradley

Citation179 P. 871,66 Colo. 186
Decision Date26 March 1919
Docket Number9526.
PartiesPEOPLE ex rel. CLAY et al. v. BRADLEY et al.
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Original proceeding in quo warranto by the People of the State of Colorado, on the relation of C. F. Clay, Eleanor F. Young and John Leo Stack, against George T. Bradley, Nancy Kirkland, and William V. Roberts. Demurrer to answer overruled, and petition dismissed.

Garrigues C.J., and Allen and Burke, JJ., dissenting.

William R. Eaton and Ralph Hartzell, both of Denver, for petitioner.

Milton Smith, Charles R. Brock, and W. H. Ferguson, all of Denver for respondents.

N Walter Dixon, of Denver, amicus curiae.

DENISON J.

In 1907 the Legislature enacted a so-called Civil Service Law (S. L. 1907, c. 117); in 1912 this was amended by an initiated law (S. L. 1913, p. 682); in 1915 the Legislature passed a new act and repealed all the others (S. L. 1915, p. 143); and in 1918 the people passed the constitutional amendment now before us for construction, which styles itself section 13 of article 12.

This amendment provides qualifications for appointment to the civil service, what offices shall be within the classified service, and for tenure of office and removal of officers and employés in that service. It then says:

'Laws shall be made to enforce the provisions of this section and to establish a state civil service commission to consist of three members, who shall be appointed for overlapping terms by the Governor alone and who shall be of known devotion to the merit system.'

It further provides for the tenure of office of the commissioners, their salary and powers, for appropriation and for payment of salaries and expenses in case no appropriation is made, and as to retention in office of classified servants when the amendment takes effect. The final clause reads, 'This section shall be self-executing.'

After the amendment had been proclaimed, which was done December 31, 1918, his excellency, Gov. Gunter, on January 9, 1919, appointed the respondents under its terms.

After the accession of his excellency, the present Governor, and on the 31st day of January, 1919, he appointed the relators under the act of 1915. Possession of the office was refused them by the respondents, and thereupon they bring this original action of quo warranto in this court. The respondents answered, and the petitioners demurred to the answer.

The contention of the relators is that the amended section is not self-executing, that it nowhere creates a commission or authorizes its creation except by act of the Legislature; that it plainly and definitely requires an act of the Legislature 'to establish a state civil service commission'; that until that is done no such thing exists, and so no one can be appointed commissioner. As to the final clause 'This section shall be self-executing,' they say that the provisions of the amendment are not such as to be self-executing, and that, since they cannot be executed without the action of the Legislature, the statement that they are self-executing does not and cannot make them so. Notwithstanding the great force of these arguments we are constrained to the opposite conclusion.

The word 'self-executing' means capable of fulfillment without the aid of any legislative enactment. 12 Corp. Jur. 629, § 106. A constitutional provision is self-executing when 'ancillary legislation is not necessary.' Lyons v. Longmont, 54 Colo. 112, 117, 129 P. 198, 200.

The word 'establish' has several meanings. Its original and etymological meaning is to make firm or sure or stable, and this is proper and ordinary; it also has a use just as proper and perhaps more ordinary, that is, to create or set up.

The former is consistent with the final clause of the section but the latter is not. By the familiar rule of construction we must give effect to every word if we can, and must so construe the remainder of the section as to accomplish such purpose if it will reasonably bear such construction. In...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Colorado Ass'n of Public Employees v. Board of Regents of University of Colorado
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 24 Diciembre 1990
    ...the structure of the civil service. In 1919, this court interpreted the amendment for the first time in People ex rel. Clay v. Bradley, 66 Colo. 186, 179 P. 871 (1919), and took judicial notice of the history of former legislation involving the civil service. We In addition we may take judi......
  • Dempsey v. Romer, 91SA9
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 3 Febrero 1992
    ...or emasculation ... in the future by some possible hostile general assembly.' " 804 P.2d at 145 (quoting People ex rel. Clay v. Bradley, 66 Colo. 186, 179 P. 871 (1919)). The Bradley court took judicial notice of the legislative history of the civil service before the first civil service am......
  • Davidson v. Sandstrom, No. 03SC287.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 26 Enero 2004
    ...constitutional provision). A provision that is self-executing "must be obeyed unless obedience is impossible." People v. Bradley, 66 Colo. 186, 188, 179 P. 871, 872 (1919) (emphasis Section 11(2) states that "[t]he voters of any such political subdivision may lengthen, shorten or eliminate ......
  • Horrell v. Department of Admin.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 25 Octubre 1993
    ...Service Amendment was adopted in response to legislative hostility towards a merit-based civil service. See People ex rel. Clay v. Bradley, 66 Colo. 186, 190, 179 P. 871, 872 (1919). "[S]ince 1919, this court has recognized that this amendment embodies the strong disposition of the people o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT