State v. Newland

• Decision Date: 10 March 1905
• Citation: 37 Wash. 428,79 P. 983
• Parties: STATE ex rel. GRIFFITH v. NEWLAND.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

79 P. 983

37 Wash. 428

STATE ex rel. GRIFFITH v. NEWLAND.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 10, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, Adams County; C. H. Neal, Judge.

Quo warranto by the state, on relation of W. C. Griffith, against A. S. Newland. From a judgment dismissing the writ petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

Zent, Lovell & Linn, for appellant.

C. L Holcomb, for respondent.

MOUNT C.J.

Appellant brought this action in quo warranto, denying the right of respondent to perform the duties of road supervisor under the act of March 16, 1903 (Laws 1903, p. 223, c. 119). The lower court sustained a demurrer to the petition and entered a judgment of dismissal. Petitioner appeals.

The only questions presented relate to the constitutionality of the act above named. Appellant claims that the act is unconstitutional upon four grounds, as follows: (1) It is a delegation of legislative authority to the various boards of county commissioners; (2) it creates an office, and provides for the appointment, and not for the election, of such officer; (3) it grants special privileges, and is in conflict with section 12, art. 1, of the Constitution; (4) the subject of the act is not expressed in the title. Sections 12 and 13 of the act in question are as folows:

'Sec 12. The boards of county commissioners may appoint from among the qualified electors in each district, for such time as they may determine, with compensation not to exceed $4 per day, a road supervisor who shall enter into a bond satisfactory to the commissioners. The commissioners shall have power to remove any supervisor at will.'

'Sec. 13. It shall be the duty of the road supervisor, under the direction of the county commissioners, to keep the roads and bridges in his district in as good repair as the funds available will allow, and keep all roads open for travel at all times, and make a detailed monthly report of all work performed in his district during the previous month to the board of county commissioners; examine and certify all bills for labor and material in his district; and perform such other duties as may be required by the commissioners for the proper maintenance of the highways.' The first two objections to the act are based upon the provisions of section 5, art. 11, of the state Constitution, which is as follows:

'The Legislature, by general and uniform laws, shall provide for the election in the several counties of boards of county commissioners, sheriffs, county clerks, treasurers, prosecuting attorneys, and other county, township, or precinct and district officers as public convenience may require, and shall prescribe their duties and fix their term of office. It shall regulate the compensation of all such officers. * * *'

It is argued that section 12, above quoted, creates a county or district officer, within the meaning of the Constitution, and provides for his appointment, instead of his election, and is for that reason in violation of the provisions of section 5 of article 11 of the Constitution. It is also contended that the act permits the county commissioners to fix the term and compensation of such officers, and that in these respects it is an unlawful delegation of the legislative powers to the boards of county commissioners. Both questions thus presented are based upon the assumption that the road supervisors provided for in the act are county or district officers, within the meaning of the Constitution. It will be noticed that these officers are not independent officers. All their defined duties are under the control and direction of the county commissioners. No terms are fixed. They are appointed for such time as the commissioners may determine and may be removed at will. Their pay is fixed at the will of the commissioners, at not to exceed $4 per day, and it is not made compulsory upon the commissioners to appoint such officers. It may be done. These restrictions do not usually surround an independent district or county officer, but are such as indicate the subordinate or deputy. When we consider that 'the boards of county commissioners of the several counties in the state shall have general supervision over the roads in their respective counties' section 7873, Pierce's Code), and that 'each county commissioner...