State v. Boyd

• Decision Date: 10 February 1885
• Parties: STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL v. BOYD.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

5 P. 735

19 Nev. 43

STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL v. BOYD.

Supreme Court of Nevada

February 10, 1885

Application for writ of quo warranto to determine respondent's right to hold the office of county assessor of Washoe county.

Clarke & King, for relator.

J. F Alexander, for respondent.

BELKNAP C.J.

Under the statute approved March 1, 1883, entitled "An act fixing the salaries of county officers in certain counties in this state, and other matters relating thereto," (St. 1883, p. 73,) the county treasurer of Washoe county is made ex officio the assessor of the county. The question presented for consideration is whether this provision is not unconstitutional.

It is claimed by relator that the provision is a violation of article 4, § 25, of the constitution, which provides that "the legislature shall establish a system of county and township government, which shall be uniform throughout the state." If this requirement can be expressed more significantly in its application to this case, it means that the legislature shall establish a uniform plan or method for the government of all the counties of the state. It is a matter of general knowledge that legislatures are disposed to adopt, without particular scrutiny, measures proposed by the representatives of a particular locality, affecting it only and not the state at large. The object of the provision was to prevent this character of legislation in relation to county government. Any change in the general system of county government may affect every county in the state. Among the advantages attained by this requirement is that the legislation upon this subject will receive the careful attention of the members of the legislature in general, all proposed alterations will be scrutinized, and frequent and disturbing changes avoided.

In obedience to the requirements of the constitution, the legislature of 1866, in dealing with the general subject of county government, provided, among other things, for the election of a county assessorand a county treasurer for each county in the state. This legislation remains in effect in each county, unless the act of 1883, exempting Washoe county from its operation, and consolidating these offices in that county, can be upheld. It is too clear for argument or controversy that a legislative act, arbitrarily establishing this plain difference in the government of Washoe county from that of the other counties of the state, violates the system of uniformity contemplated by the constitution. No elaboration of the proposition can make it plainer than the simple statement of the facts. The draughtsman of the statute, in apparent anticipation of its conflict with the constitution, inserted a clause which may have been intended to give it the appearance of a general law. It is as follows:

"Sec. 10. This act shall apply to all counties in this state in which there were cast more than eleven hundred and fifty votes, and less than thirteen hundred and fifty votes, at the general election held in eighteen hundred and eighty-two, in this state."

Washoe and Esmeralda counties each cast about 1,250 votes at the election of 1882, and they are the only counties in the state falling within the classification attempted to be made. It is apparent from an inspection of the statute that even this classification is illusory, because some of the provisions of the act are expressly applicable only to Washoe county and others only to Esmeralda county. The statute does not, therefore, apply uniformly, even within the limited classification named. But the basis of classification cannot be sustained. Abstractly considered, the language of the section appears to contemplate a class of counties, but in its practical operation the law is applicable to Washoe and Esmeralda counties only, and can never affect any other county. The legislature could, with equal right, designate these counties by name, as by the total vote cast at a past election.

A statute somewhat similar in form and purpose was adopted by the legislature of Pennsylvania in the year 1878. It was intended to apply to Crawford county alone, but in order to evade the provisions of the...