People v. Hamrock

• Decision Date: 07 January 1924
• Docket Number: 10701.
• Citation: 74 Colo. 411,222 P. 391
• Parties: PEOPLE, by FLEMING, Atty. Gen., ex rel. QUEREAU v. HAMROCK.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

222 P. 391

74 Colo. 411

PEOPLE, by FLEMING, Atty. Gen., ex rel. QUEREAU v. HAMROCK.

No. 10701.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

January 7, 1924

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Clarence J Morley, Judge.

Quo warranto by the People, by Russell W. Fleming, Attorney General, on the relation of Elizabeth Quereau, against P.J Hamrock. Judgment for defendant, and relator brings error.

Affirmed.

Russell W. Fleming, Atty. Gen., Riley R. Cloud Asst. Atty. Gen., and Charles Roach, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error.

John R Wolff, of Boulder, and Donald C. McCreery, of Greeley, for defendant in error.

ALLEN J.

This was an action in quo warranto, begun by the people, upon the relation of Elizabeth Quereau, against P.J. Hamrock, to oust him from the office of the state civil service commissioner, and for an adjudication that the relator was entitled to the office. The judgment was for the defendant. The cause comes here for review.

The principal question to be determined is: When did the term of the civil service commissioners begin under the provisions of the constitutional amendment?

The amendment was voted upon at the November, 1918, election, and declared adopted by proclamation of Gov. Gunter, December 31, 1918. It provides for a state civil service commission----

'to consist of three members who shall be appointed for overlapping terms by the Governor alone. * * * The first three commissioners appointed hereunder shall hold for two, four and six years respectively.' Laws 1919, c. 102, p. 341.

January 9, 1919, Gov. Gunter appointed Roberts as a commissioner for the four-year term. January 12, 1922, Roberts resigned, and Gov. Shoup appointed Trounstine to fill the vacancy in 'said term expiring January 9, 1923.' December 31, 1922, Trounstine resigned, and January 2, 1923, Gov. Shoup appointed defendant in error, Hamrock, 'for the term expiring December 31, 1928.' January 9, 1923, Gov. Sweet, who on that day succeeded Gov. Shoup in office, appointed relator as a member of said commission 'for the term of six years commencing on the 9th day of January A. D. 1923.'

Relator contends that the terms of the commissioners began to run only when the appointments were first made, and hence the Roberts-Trounstine term expired January 9, 1923, and her appointment became effective that day, Gov. Shoup having no power to appoint an officer whose term began at or later than the date of the expiration of the Governor's. Defendant in error contends that the terms of the commissioners began to run when the act became effective through the Governor's proclamation, and hence the Roberts-Trounstine term expired December 31, 1922, and Hamrock's appointment was valid for a full term of six years less the two days already elapsed.

In People v. Bradley, 66 Colo. 186, 179 P. 871, this court held that the civil service amendment is self-executing even to the extent that the office of a civil service commissioner existed from and after the amendment went into effect, with or without any legislation on the subject. The office existed, therefore, on and after December 31, 1918, and the Governor could, according to our decision in the Bradley Case, appoint members of the commission at any time on or after December 31, 1918, to begin serving at once. The office existed without legislation, and, since it did so because the amendment is self-executing, it follows that the office existed without appointment. The Governor had no power, neither did the Legislature, to defer the existence of the office by failure to act. Had the Governor failed to make any appointment, the office would still be deemed to exist.

When did the term of the commissioner begin? The office began December 31, 1918. The amendment provides that the commissioners shall hold for two, four, and six years, respectively. It does not say that they shall so hold from and after the date of their respective appointments.

If the office was in existence immediately after the amendment took effect, namely December 31, 1918, and such is the decision in the Bradley Case, then the terms began when the office began. If it should be held that the terms began when the appointments were actually made, then we would reach a result in conflict with the reasoning and decision in the Bradley Case, because if the first terms began only after actual appointment, then there would have been no office in existence prior to the beginning of such first terms. But the office did exist, under the decision of that case. It follows that the terms began when the office began. The Governor could not delay the beginning of the first terms by delaying an appointment. Otherwise the amendment would not be self-executing. If its operation was not dependent on the Legislature, neither was it dependant on the Governer.

Unquestionably the office of the civil service commissioner was created by...