People ex rel. Murphy v. Field
Decision Date | 02 June 1919 |
Docket Number | 9576. |
Citation | 66 Colo. 367,181 P. 526 |
Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. MURPHY v. FIELD. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Proceeding in quo warranto by the People of the State of Colorado, by Victor E. Keyes, Attorney General, upon the relation of William R. Murphy, against John E. Field. Judgment for relator.
Victor E. Keyes, Atty. Gen., and Charles Roach Deputy Atty. Gen. (Charles W. Waterman, of Denver, of counsel), for the People.
Milton Smith, Charles R. Brock, W. H. Ferguson, and Karl F. Crass all of Denver, for respondent.
This action is an original proceeding in quo warranto to determine the title to the office of member of the board of land commissioners of Colorado. The relator claims under and by virtue of an appointment by the Governor, confirmed by the Senate in compliance with the requirements of section 9, art. 9, of the Constitution. This provision of the Constitution was adopted as an amendment at the general election of 1910, and is as follows:
The respondent claims under and by virtue of section 13, art. 12, of the Constitution, adopted as an amendment at the general election of 1918, and known as the 'civil service amendmant,' and, in so far as applicable, is as follows:
The respondent was duly appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate to fill an unexpired term expiring on the second Tuesday in January, 1919, and was holding under such appointment at the date of the adoption of the civil service amendment and at its promulgation, both of which occurred prior to the expiration of the term for which he was appointed.
The only question to be determined is whether or not the office of member of the state board of land commissioners is one embraced and included in the civil service amendment as being subject to the provisions thereof.
It has been frequently held by this court, and generally by all courts, that the Constitution, including all amendments thereto, must be construed as one instrument, and as a single enactment. So that for the purposes of this case we must consider the two constitutional provisions under consideration, together with all other provisions of the fundamental law, as having been originally written therein, and as stated in Dixon v. People, 53 Colo. 527, 127 P. 930:
'To reach a proper solution of the problem it is essential that we take the Constitution as it is, including every part thereof relating to the subject-matter under consideration, and construe the instrument as a whole, causing it, including the amendments thereto, to harmonize, giving to every word, as far as possible, its appropriate meaning and effect.'
So construed then, does the civil service provision change, modify, or repeal section 9, art. 9, or is it so repugnant to that articles as to justify the conclusion that the respondent is, and was intended to be, included within its provisions.
The civil service provision contains no repealing clause, and specific reference is nowhere made therein to the state board of land commissioners, nor to the members thereof.
Therefore, if it is to be held that the office of the respondent is included within the civil service provision, it must be because that article repeals section 9, art. 9, by implication, or that the latter article is so repugnant to the former that the two provisions may not be reconciled.
We have held it to be a universal rule that repeals by implication will not be favored, and that it is only in cases where a conflict clearly and unavoidably exists may this doctrine be invoked. In re Funding Indebtedness, 15 Colo. 430, 24 P. 877. We have further held that such repugnancy must appear to be so clear and positive that the two enactments cannot consistently stand together. Upon this point we said in Schwenke et al. v. Union Depot Co., 7 Colo. 512, 4 P. 905:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Durango v. Durango Transp., Inc.
...370, 572 P.2d 821, 823 (1977); accord People ex rel. Boatright v. Newlon, 77 Colo. 516, 521, 238 P. 44, 46 (1925); People v. Field, 66 Colo. 367, 373, 181 P. 526, 528 (1919). Nevertheless, "[i]f separate clauses in the same constitutional ... enactment can by one construction be harmonized ......
-
Ramsey v. City of N. Las Vegas
...must be construed as one instrument, and as a single enactment," as if the entire document had been enacted at one time. People v. Field, 66 Colo. 367, 181 P. 526, 527 (1919). "As no constitutional guarantee enjoys preference, so none should suffer subordination or deletion." Ullmann, 350 U......
-
State v. Ensor
...the general provision to control in cases where the special provision does not apply. Manly v. State, 7 Md. 135, 147; People v. Field, 66 Colo. 367, 181 P. 526; 11 Am.Jur., Constitutional Law, Sec. 55; 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sec. The Court concluded that the special provision govern......
-
Colorado State Civil Service Emp. Ass'n v. Love
...servants who are inherently exempt from the ambit of civil service. In support of their contention, respondents rely upon People v. Field, 66 Colo. 367, 181 P. 526 and Board of Education v. Spurlin, 141 Colo. 508, 349 P.2d 357. In both cases, the court held certain officers were not subject......
-
Attorney General's Opinions
...Union Depot and Railroad Company, 7 Colo. 512, 4 P. 905 (1884); Harrington v. Harrington, 58 Colo. 154, 144 P. 20 (1914); People v. Field, 66 Colo. 367 (1919). Thus, while these and other cases hold that general legislation does not repeal special legislation, they were concerned with situa......