*1 granted. Writ WELCH, JOHNSON, V.C.J., CORN, O’NEAL, DAVISON,
BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur.
DOBBS BOARD OF COUNTY OF
COM’RS OKLAHOMA
COUNTY et al. May 26,
No. 35947. 1953.
plaintiff. Miskovsky, Cotter, Frank Everett E. Bayless, Crowe, Wayne Gran- V. P. Sherman, Scanland, Nathan ville S. City, defendants. Oklahoma Betty Dobbs, a HALLEY, O. C.J. taxpayer of Oklahoma resident constitutionality B. of H. attacks Legislature, which of the 1953 No. 646 March effective became prohibit board of prays that we Oklahoma commissioners appointing second judge. 131(a), amends sec. above law 1951, and addi- O.S. Title *2 county judges tional in all office day counties his until the close of the next preceding Monday having population second in Janu- Oklahoma of a ary, eleven; nineteen hundred and and 300,000 more, by as shown the last thereafter the term of office of Census, Federal Decennial which and County Judge years, shall be two and further that resident tax- gen- he shall be elected at each biennial payer county having popula- of a that county judge eral be a the The election. tion constitutionality contest of qualified voter and a resident of by original the Act action in court. county election, at the time of his lawyer practice and a licensed county is admitted that Oklahoma of court record of the The State. required population justify has the county judge judge shall be appointment of an additional coun- county court.” ty judge, if H.B. No. 646 is held valid. provides: Section 2 of article XVII petition showing An amended was filed county that the board of commissioners hereby created, subject “There county did, 24, of Oklahoma change by on March to for each Legislature, in and organized county State, 1953, appoint Berry of this William A. as an Judge County Court, the offices of of the additional for Oklahoma County Attorney, Clerk of the District county joined and he is herein as a County County Court, Clerk, Sheriff, party county defendant with the com- Register County Treasurer, Deeds, appointment. missioners who made Superintendent Surveyor, In- of Public struction, and such are now County Commissioners, three petition alleges The that H. B. No. municipal township as officers 11, is ineffective because it violates sec. provided for under the laws article VII of the Constitution. State Territory except Oklahoma, provided.” in this Constitution otherwise pertinent portion The of H.B. No. 646 1, is sec. which follows: is as points Petitioner out that I P. 2d general “(A) At election to be being law, court before it had a similar November, 1948, held in and two each (2) years thereafter, there shall be H.B. No. effective March county elected in each Oklahoma, State providing judges county in a County provided Judge, a county having a County having popu- however in each and held the same unconstitutional lation in excess of Three Hundred Thou- void. (300,000) pre- sand as shown the last ceding regular Federal Decennial Cen- principal objective of the Act sus, there shall be elected an additional here attacked is that same as County Judge, in all counties have examined care- the 1931 Act. We County Oklahoma, the torney, State At- opinion fully Nichols v. in the County a Court Clerk Levy case, decided this court in Sheriff, term who shall hold office for a dissenting opinions, and also the two (2) years except beginning, of two that up- agree No. is if H.B. County Judge, provided of the Section necessary Article Constitution to overrule held will be Oklahoma, ary following Monday in Janu- first Levy. In that the decision in Nichols election, their and until agreed issue the real case it was quali- elected their successors are prohibit “Does was: fied.” providing for more VII of our Con- Section of article county judge than provides: stitution regardless size of court work?” amount hereby each “There established clearly us. the real issue before Such County Court, in this State record; and, shall be a court opin- that the The defendants contend ratify the election to this Constitu- at Levy erroneous in the Nichols v. ion tion, in each shall be elected there following particulars: County Judge, hold who shall (a) The failure to sustain the constitu- Legislature, been done has tionality many an Act of the times. prohibition in the absence of clear pointed It was also out that district the limitation in the Constitution of the judges might be sent into other coun- to enact try cases, ties .outside their district question. law in provision but no such made as to (b) The county judges. decision failed to consider pertinent provisions certain of the Con- in Nichols v. stitution. very body well summarized in the (c) It failed to consider the Bill of *3 opinion, page 248, Reports, on Rights expressed 6, II, in sec. Article expressed disagree- wherein the court Constitution, and, by ment with a decision handed down Supreme Arkansas, in the Court of (d) reasoning Their in the is following language: fallacious. reasoning “We cannot follow The above contentions are treated Supreme Court of Arkansas together in the defendants, of the 343, brief Martin, 421, State v. 28 L.R.A. articles 60 Ark 30 S.W. only since Nichols v. the effect that is the 153; pro- used in a constitutional upon by case relied plaintiff, we have vision are too indefinite limit be hold to define considered them together, with ref- judges may the number of which erence to the decision which must be provided by legislation. cannot We overruled if H.B. No. 646 is to be sus- county judge’, county ‘a that ‘the prin- tained. That decision is based judge’, election’, lawyer’ ‘his and ‘a re- cipally upon provisions of sec. judges. fer to two or more well As VII, supra, provides art. for might provision it be said that county establishment in each the Constitution for ‘a Governor’ would legislative county court,” authorize enactment “a and that there shall by two the to The Governors. illustration used county be elected in each “a plaintiff agent that an is authorized judge” who shall hold “his” office until buy thereby ‘a horse’ would not fixed, a time and that thereafter buy authorized to horses.” county judge” term of office of “the years, shall be two and that “he” shall discussing phases Before certain be elected each biennial The election. Levy decision, the Nichols v. we shall qualifications county judge” of “the es- call attention to certain other well prescribed required and he is to be “a governing tablished rules constitutional lawyer”. interpretation. pointed de- is out fendants Constitution is an that a state original The of the powers instrument of limitations in the is fixed sec. art. “until government, of the while the state Fed- provided by law”; otherwise sec. grant of eral is a limited Article, court, 10 of the same a district Legislature power. supreme, ex- Our any judge power “or thereof” shall have provi- cept express as limited writs, provides to issue while sec. 12 If there sions of our state Constitution. county court, judge “or there- validity any of an doubt as to the of,” power. also have such Legislature, act the doubt must constitution- be resolved in favor of the pointed It was while article out that ality Legislature. the Act of The changes VII certain sec- aptly expressed Finerty rule is provision law, tions of there no such Williams, where- 81 Okla 196 P. changing relative the number in it is stated: county judges. provision fixing the jurisdiction of the court contains granted specifically powers “All changed a clause that same Congress the United States arising by implication re- therefrom are and additional courts, and in- people served to the of; its státe. or the states there- creased the judges number of district get hence the does not from the 22 -originally provided for to power from the Constitution of 42. people have, of the state through Constitution-makers, its V, Section expressly gives power to limit the of the state legislative government branch of our any Legislature, and limitation authority wide following lan- power of the should arise guage: only upon specific declarations strictly against should be construed im- authority “The plied arising limitations and doubt rightful shall extend subjects to all should be resolved in favor legislation, any specific grant of Legislature. Fletcher v. See authority in Constitution, upon any Peck, 162; 3 L. Gol- Cranch Ed. subject whatsoever, shall not work a Prince, den v. Cas. C.C.P. Fed. Wash. restriction, limitation, or exclusion Ry. 5,509; Alabama & Florida No. such authority upon the same or Burkett, Co. v. 86-87.” Ala. subject subjects other whatsoever.” Herndon, Judge, Anderson, 165 While conditions, new such as the in- adopting Okla. 2d crease of population, have increased the language Supreme Court of Mis- work courts, of our justify it does not souri, it was said: illogical an interpretation or unlawful of our Constitution. We validity think such “When the of a statute *4 approaches question, may matters properly drawn in the the court be considered subject gravest involving as arriving at the intention of the fram- responsibility, to be considered and ers of our Constitution and those who greatest with the The Gen- caution. adoption. voted for its It true is presumed Assembly eral is to have been the constitutional convention did not requirements as careful to observe adopt Constitution, but we should enacting of the constitution in the stat- they only prepared remember that not Every applying ute as presumption court it. it but part were an influential indulged be in favor is to people mass of validity act, whom it and that was sub- presumption by to continue until ifb adopted mitted and whom it was as invalidity doubt.” appear beyond made supreme law of the state. (State Aloe, ex 152 rel. v. Mo. Legislature to estab 477, 496.) 54 S.W. judicial courts, lish other offices and foregoing If we follow the rule of con- appropriate agencies gov of the state perti- struction we shall other consider by general been'upheld ernment law has provisions nent our Constitution in (Lowden this court v. Oklahoma upon by addition to those relied the County Board, 706, Excise 186 100 Okla. plaintiff. 448; Smith, P. 2d 162 Crawford v. Okla. 165, 964; Ledger 19 2dP. Roberts v. 6, II, art. Sec. that: wood, 448) and Okla. 272 P. * * * justice “The courts of be shall placed upon Legis the limitations open certain every person, speedy and and V, lature sec. article with re every remedy afforded spect special laws, local and does reg wrong be delay justice ***; right and and prohibit sale, denial, without administered ulating general prejudice.” law “affairs “changing county seats”, counties”, or foregoing man- order to meet the * * * “creating offices in counties”. date of our Constitution provided Supreme VII, creating judi- has this court with a In sec. art. Commission, powers state, Referees. no Court cial we find superior courts; and courts has created distinction between made the and cities, pleas court, peace, justices of common in some of our munic- ipal sary courts, county may- no distinction is made in order that court grant judges might speedy justice delay? to the number who without We judges, county provision. pro- serve as district find no such hibits Sec. judges judges thereby special subjects. of other courts laws on certain only being “creating prescribing created. The One offices limitation Supreme powers such courts be inferior to the Court. and duties of officers counties, cities,” etc. But section prohibit, but, fact, grants, does not Walker, In Burks Okla. authority full to enact such Hayes, quot- Mr. Justice after upon very subjects laws mentioned ing VII, sec. art. said: by general acts. Sec. art. “* * * judicial systems Two different follows: prevailed theretofore had within the judicial power “The of this State shall territory dockets crowded, tell between the various courts constituting now the state. The Senate, sitting be vested in the as a badly all the were courts impeachment, Supreme court of impossible it and was to fore- Court, County Courts, Courts, District just jurisdiction what division of Peace, Courts of Justices of the Munic- en- would ipal Courts, courts, other such dispose able the courts of the state to boards, commissions or inferior to the already of the business accumulated Supreme Court, established upon might the dockets and that reason- by law.” ably expected to arise.” At statehood the of Okla- accept plaintiff If we the view of the 55,849. homa was In 1950it was and the decision Nichols v. 325,352. filed in the probate The number cases might granted mandate of provides lay be said that the year ending January 1, authority carry full out the year ending was 127. In the Janu- II, supra, sec. ary 1, 1950, 1,546 cases, there were an speedy justice de- without 1,500%. Sanity hearings increase of citizens, to all of our with the sole ju- much, have increased almost as exception of those whose controversies hearings, venile beer licenses and other fell within affairs tremendously. duties have increased courts. The administration of estates of decedents is vested exclu- ap- must now make sively as certain terests are *5 in courts. cases Such plication crippled for medical care for in- death itself and those children, issue to without a li- certificates ex-service- surely entitled be heard permit peddling men to promptly provi- in accordance with cense, supervise bureau, marriage license orderly sions for an administration beer, pool issue and billiard settlement of estates. licenses, cashing hall authorize checks pensioners for disabled pensioners by proper persons. and of deceased V, Sec. art. is as follows: powers “The reservation of the referendum in ar- initiative and this held it was that: deprive the ticle shall not the judge’, county “We cannot hold that ‘a any propose repeal law, or county judge’, 'the ‘his election’, and pass any may measure, which be con- lawyer’ judges.” ‘a refer to two or more sistent with the Constitution of the State and the Constitution of the United States.” Despite ruling meaning of we find that sec. 9 of VII, ‘see. art. judicial any VII, ex- article relative to districts Is there in the limiting judges, press provision for district stance that: the in the number sub- prohibiting county judges, or state shall be divided of Legislature judicial providing by general into 21 from districts and the voters judge in of an each district shall for the creation additional elect “a law except found neces- the district where it is court” in the 13th judges point any in district be than other decision exist- elected and judge ing rejected that the district shall be a citi- at the it was time ,court. zen syllabus expresses and a United States resi- the hold- ings territory years in dent of for two that case follows: year prior of his district at least one 8,1895, providing “Act Feb. for an ad- to his election. The term of office of the judge judicial ditional for the Sixth judge years, district shall be four and circuit, and for the division of that at the time of election he shall his Const, circuit, not violate does art. age years. have reached the of 25 If §13, providing for the division judge any elected in district is ill judicial circuits, state into for the preside, or unable to the Chief Justice judge’ circuit; election of ‘a for each may designate any judge judicial district in nor section which vests power supreme of the state judge state to serve in lieu of court, courts, etc., by in circuit estab- elected from the It district. was fur- lishing office, judicial new provided public ther shall that if business power is vested.” require it, the Chief Justice appoint judge to hold district provided The Arkansas Constitution any district and that two or more that state should divided into judges may any district sit in judge” circuits and for each circuit “a should be elected. It was at the same time. contended, here, that letter use word or jurisdiction Sec. fixes the “judge” prohibits “a” word before the county among things courts and other providing the than one from more provides that in the absence the dis- dis- judge for each circuit. The judge trict his his passed providing an has act qualification, county court, judge judges for two circuit for the Sixth thereof, of shall have to issue writs body opinion it Circuit. In the injunction in matters about to be said, page 425, 30 was at S.W.: brought pending in the district court injunction, issue and to damus, force the It county judge writs of man- “* * * we are of the But necessary and all writs en- grammatical particle ‘a’ whose of- courts. frequently only preserve eu- fice is provided further that when phony in the use of words and structure disqualified case sentences, often and whose force pending county court, judge in the depends upon mere accident of ac- used, centuation, nor was pro tempore may same manner be selected used, by fram- ever intended to ers of our struct and purpose the were ministration provided for the election law, organic ob- as to so judges pro tempore of court. in the district partially exalted defeat the courts, the circuit for which jurisdiction’, ‘great of all residuum provided in the last sec- nowhere speedy namely, the created, ad- Chief mentioned Justice tion may county other ***” justice. public assign judge from the elected to for which he was Martin, su- State The decision The reason in the state. *6 Supreme by approved pra, because for this is doubtless judges ty judges Joint First Trust Iowa in Court Stock strong, paid while coun- the state are Chicago Arm- v. Bank Land are officers and are 502, in 425, 269 N.W. 222 Iowa county they paid serve. n which syllabus: in the the court stated majority opinion in “ Nichols v. ** * The meaning any one ‘an’ word *” * * holdings of Levy refused to follow great number In Supreme Arkansas. Court the State 506, Murphy, Ill. Lindley 387 v. In 343, Martin, 30 Ark. S.W. v. Supreme Court 832, 56 N.E. 2d nearly 153, more L.R.A. supra, case, In 11 Illinois cites Martin Am. Jur. Law, Constitutional. approval page regard with stated: sec. on 838 and it is said in to the flex- ibility of a Constitution: “* * * generally ‘a’ article singular unless such used in a sense “A usually Constitution announces language is clear an intention principles certain basic to serve * * *) (1 p. 1; A C.J.S. statute perpetual foundation of the state. It is agree plaintiffs with that the article We not intended to be a limitation on its but, instead, quantity ‘a’ refers not development healthful nor an obstruc- ** *” quality or nature. progress. tion to its accordingly, And courts are not adopt inclined to such a normal It would have been and rea- technical or strained construction as provided for “one to have sonable county judge” unduly impair will Legislature efficiency for each responsibilities to meet oc- by changing casioned the Constitution had the framers of desired conditions of so- * * *” ciety. num- and intended to limit the county judges for each ber of county. to one suggested It is that, in the interest stability permanence govern- ment, tution interpretation an of the Consti- V, “one” and art. the words In sec. this court that has stood for describing the mem- used in “two” are years more than 20 should not be over- bership of the state term of offices ruled where the facts are similar. There senators. is some merit in this contention in view 10(d), V, “one” the words In art. sec. of the fact interpretations that different freely relative used and “two” are may result in possibly confusion and in- representatives. find that in sections We justice to those who seemingly well established rule. upon have relied V, the 14, 15, article 12, 13, “three”, “one” and “two” words However, if we legislative providing districts convinced in the number of placed the court has representatives to be an inter- erroneous pretation upon phrase some elected, times. are used numerous our ba- law, sic it must be indi- admitted that it is These cated sections duty our clearly correct such the constitu- error. that when We have done it expressly before as well as other convention wanted state tional limit the number Supreme courts and the it used of officers Court of the passage United States. The meaning number exact of time the words should not be allowed to it serve as a intended. bar- rier interpretation. to a correct in Nichols think the We question Leg- rules cardinal overlooked certain Capitol general provid- Iron islature to enact & of Co. In Steel law construction. ing counties 2d county judge more than Fuller, P. having syllabus: 300,000pop- first more than it is stated in the ulation has come before this court constitutional amendment should “A again, largely because of the increase light purpose of its construed of our coun- some practical interpretation given a so ties, but also because our courts purpose of plainly manifest that those who jur- have been burdened with additional adopted carried it obviously impossible isdiction until it is out.” single for in our more Flynn’s Estate, 205 Okla. Re populous justice speedy counties to administer 2d said: delay. without authority Legislature ex- “The Constitution, Our sec. subjects legisla- rightful all tends to county judges that where have by the Constituirán not withdrawn tion disqualified county judge pro tempore therewith.” or in conflict
521' 2d adopted be in selected the same manner been should.have in that judge logic case. under reasoning similar cir- Hefner is, dissent me, cumstances. It is well known to the at- to unanswerable. torneys Since written, populous in the our most above counties mentioned dissent was temporary county judge that a several is se- states, including Iowa and Illinois, to lected weeks each serve for as much two have general followed the thought year while the overbur- contained majority therein. The opinion regular county given dened in judge Levy the case, supra, has never brief rest or the been As we vacation. construe followed. opinion Levy, in supra, Nichols v. While I always have opin- been the such action would be a violation of ion that we apply should the rule of Constitution in that there would be two stare decisis wherever possible, yet, county judges county during for that when we find opinion that an earlier period. We cannot believe proven has been be to unsound and we framers of our Constitution intended thoroughly convinced of its un- impede justice by limiting each soundness, we should correct the error county judge, to one people or that the at the possible earliest date. adoption thought who voted for its ever given that the au- I am authorized to state that Mr. Jus- thority to increase the number of tice WELCH foregoing concurs in the judges ing urgent needs, meet the aris- views. population from an increase in ARNOLD, (specially J. placed upon concurring). the additional burdens The highway county judges by placed effective block in increased complexities due to the so- administration modern justice by ciety. They short-sighted Levy (1931) Nichols were not so v. 151 Okla. as to 1 P. think 2d that at no time would has been probate widows, removed. The orphans, business of the court become great insane, impossible so the halt for one and the blind fact, —in all man to handle. residents of this state problems whose fall within the exclu- express We find no in limitations original jurisdiction sive upon power our Constitution court of as county may Oklahoma have, general to enact law au- intended, justice delay. without thorizing appointment election county judges having rights Our justice, fundamental counties equality, 300,000. pursuit freedom and the excess happiness hereby decision did not come from the Con- gress, Legislature, judiciary. and H.B. No. 646 is held or the overruled absolutely de- We and the are endowed constitutional acts with these rights they fendants, county inalienable Creator of of Okla- came from the commissioners — electing all, plainly second us God. This is homa recognized by approved. The writ our Constitutions. plaintiff prohibition prayed by the legislative All must come from denied. people sovereign endowed because — WELCH, JOHNSON, V.C.J., rights. with those fundamental The ul- WILLIAMS, ARNOLD, DAVISON, JJ., purpose government timate all is to O’NEAL, CORN, concur. keep vouchsafe and secure the exercise JJ., BLACKBIRD, dissent. rights. of these importance Recognizing concurring). of these DAVISON, (specially J. Henry sovereign rights, dissenting as did Patrick my views United and the President States Hefner, of Nich- the case Mr. Justice approved lately earnestly he so when et ols al. *8 statement, justice the immortal “The me courts of of “Give the State every open person, be to and shall Liberty give Death”, people or me the speedy remedy and certain afforded Legislature power vested in the to every wrong every injury and for to legislate rightful subjects on all not person, property, reputation; or and specifically withheld. Article §36 justice administered and shall be provides: of our state Constitution delay, preju- sale, denial, without or dice.” Article §6. authority “The rightful subjects shall extend to all of. plain How can this mandate legislation, any specific grant and au- of out if court Constitution carried this any thority Constitution, upon in this by implication, contrary judicial to all subject whatsoever, work shall not Legislature? precedent, restrict the restriction, limitation, of or exclusion authority upon such other the same * * * plainly expressed purpose Under the subject whatsoever.” above and mandate of the Constitution noted, stand in Though this is true Con- most state nothing should be allowed stitutions, the reverse is true of the way Legislature in the Constitution of United The States. power proper its exercise of Congress legislative is restricted its duty provide adequate courts to ad- powers specifically granted. to those justice people promptly. minister We have heretofore held mandate of the Constitution all Article section Constitution where provides: of the United States comes in specific conflict restriction with a legislative powers granted “All herein Congress shall United be vested in a of the mandate overrides restriction States, consist of a Sheriff, shall (Smartt, must be carried out. Representatives.” Senate House of Commissioners, County v. Board Craig Co., you Here have the reason for the uni- 1918C, 313; No. L.R.A. Dist. School legis- versal rule that restriction Craig Craig Co., Dist. No. Co. v. School power lative of our State 1035.) There 287 P. Okla. directly plainly spoken must be specific Here restriction. was a there the Constitution and the universal rule there is none. may that manufactured such never be restriction by implication. specific is conceded there is no It belong people. create The courts all the limitation on county supra, case, people Tupelo, Mississippi, have The on courts. interpretation entirely faulty rights county court the same before the based per- implication people Tupelo, some and overlooks of Oklahoma as do significant provisions Oklahoma, of Oklahoma residents tinent and now, adopted, county, and all other residents When Constitution. prece- justice Everybody judicial is entitled to state. reason there was no always pro- wrong, support it. reason our and for this dent to effectively wrong, has unmistakable but in these has been vides the words: prompt prevented administration Legislature de- justice in this state. judicial power State “The for another need termined in sitting Senate, aas vested in the county and county judge in Oklahoma Supreme impeachment, a need again determined County Courts, now has Courts, Court, District duty de- Peace, Munic- and its exclusive of Justices its it. This is Courts courts, Courts, such other ipal disturbed not be will termination boards, to the inferior commissions Supreme con- need is Here the appellate courts. Court, be established ceded. 7, §1; Article law.” circumstances all the In view of Legisla- adopters told and then over- duty court to positive of this judges: ture and supra. Otherwise, single more than one in a rule Nichols v. majority opin- prompt justice as is done in the the Con- commanded ion, necessity. to be only seems that of Re- stitution will continue to be denied peated Legis- flimsy consistency reference made to the excuse that *9 orig- continued Consistency additions to should would lature’s the be maintained. inal duties of help here, a with no but ad- that, populous inference in justice the more ministration of would. counties, like Oklahoma it has Judges, preachers lawyers, of the humanly impossible become almost gospel, and teachers unashamed their discharge one toman me, them. To organizational agreed affiliations are is no countenancing, valid reason for au- that there is little doubt that we are thorizing approving a direct violation facing now way we have a to our threat democratic my opinion, the Constitution. to life, greater, any perhaps, than contrary construe the Constitution to experienced in our national plain wording, any case, its in sets history. danger This common has very dangerous precedent and creates aroused a will united to defend our “opening wedge” quite an conceivably of Something more, however, institutions. breaking enable the down democracy than a mere enthusiasm for important number of its most must they animate its defenders or will provisions, including pertaining to those fail. The ultimate survival of ideal rights individual liberties and human depend primarily strength will regarded heretofore inviolate and of its basic institutions and confi- guaranteed plain English words fence of its citizens in them. commonly by ordinary lay- understood men, variously applied untrained him, puts said to ‘No who “Jesus one unwarrantedly and used sometimes plough, his then hand to looks legal documentary construction, rules of back, God.’ Kingdom is fitted for the ” only simple commonly to have —Luke 9:62 meaning. accepted opinion recognizes majority that O’NEAL, (dissenting). J. For the rea- sec. tion, Constitu of Oklahoma opinion majority sons stated in the singular words'“a”, “the”, uses Levy, 1 151 Okla. 2dP. “he”, referring to the 766, respectfully I dissent. judgeship thereby created, and court BLACKBIRD, (dissenting). I re- J. how and I am unable to see such our One of principles tation the use spectfully majority most opinion dissent wording plain does not restrict my my associates, single judgeship. such counties compelling doing reasons for so elemental strictest and most fully considered and set forth in interpre governing judicial 245, 1 151 2d Nichols v. Okla. P. statutory of constitutional or 766, which has stood the test time as provisions is their evident mean that precedent ap- accepted. ing authorities See must be proximately years. 22 Bayless, cited in Jones v. wording thereof is 2d 506. If P. paragraph majority In the 5th unambiguous, plain, clear and there opinion’s syllabus, recognized it is that justification no for the use reason precedent such should stand unless interpretive dif devices to fabricate a erroneous, body opin- but in the meaning. The stand ferent words must established, ion it is not on the basis they changed by appropri are, until principle, sound valid amending processes. repealing or ate Nichols decision is erroneous. connection, I In this remember think it well part emphasize controlling enlarging reason for Shaw, plain wording Dixon of this court in 500, 504, 50 211, A.L.R. P. authorize the create Okla. case, supra, quoted in the Nichols STATE INSURANCE FUND v. as follows: TRIESCHMANN. “ * * * language employed by the May No. 35696. 1953. law state the basic makers 2d 823. given or subtle a strained not be should meaning av- meaning, as the but such the lan- erage would conclude citizen imports. reason guage This for the ratifying electorate, the docu- the ment breathing into thereby life provisions same, considered the (Em- fairly imports.” language used ours.) phasis analyzed, properly the matter When real con- be seen that it will *10 presented herein, question stitutional having merely is not whether more, 300,000, needing obviously official an additional discharg- county judge in one to aid its duties, may, ing under official his Constitution, one more than such have Consti- judge, rather: Whether but any county (irre- authorizes a tution spective need) more than to have county judge. Constitution If the obviously says, it what mean does the number it no limit then have, county judges give Legislature may and the regardless offices, such or more majority opinion has failed need. respect point in which out ambiguous on sub- plain word- ject, wherein or to show thereof, ing is in con- sec. pro- constitutional other flict with my matter, Accordingly, vision. plain by that opinion, settled remains crystal clear wording, as made supra. Saied, R. R. and William Mont Powell plaintiff error. City, Oklahoma to announce authorized I am Bounds, Hugo, views concurs and James CORN Hal Welch Justice Mr. expressed. in error. defendant
herein