78 Miss. 487 | Miss. | 1900
delivered the opinion of the court.
In the case of Bousquet v. State, ex rel. Gleason, decided last Monday (ante, p. 478), we held that the mayor of a municipality which had accepted the provisions as to municipalities provided by the code of 1892, in the chapter on that subject, could not vote in an election for the officers provided for in §§ 3001 and 2992, except when there was a tie between the aldermen; that the mayor was not a member of the board of aldermen, and could not vote as an alderman to make a tie, and then as mayor to break it, thus voting twice.
In this case, adhering to that ruling, we are required to decide the further question whether the old board or the new board should elect the tax collector, since § 2992 provides that the tax collector shall hold his office for two years, and until his successor is qualified, and the successful litigant in this case would not,, without such decision, know from what date his term of office began.
We are satisfied, after a careful and critical examination of the chapter on municipalities in the code of 1892, that the old board had no power to elect. Such power can only be derived from the most technical adherence to the very letter of §§ 2989 and 2992, looked at isolatedly, wholly disconnected from all of the other sections of that chapter relating to the matter. Such-construction is manifestly opposed to the whole spirit and scope of said chapter. It would permit a board which had been defeated at an election, on the very issue of who the tax collector should be, to elect, when the first Tuesday of January came before the first Monday, that person tax collector who had been repudiated at the polls, where, as might occur, his selection was made a matter of preference and instruction by the voters.
The plain purpose of the code provisions was that the new board — the incoming administration — should choose the clerk, the tax collector and the police justice unembarrassed by any opposition on the part of the retiring board. The new admin
The legislature had in mind the general, not the exceptional; what would usually happen, to wit: that Tuesday would come after Monday, not what would be extraordinary, and happen only five times in nineteen elections or thirty-eight years. Some point was attempted to be made as to the disarrangement of the terms of office, their unequal length, on the construction we favor. But the same thing would apply as an objection in the matter of the term of governor, and besides, if fixed and permanent procedure is the object to be secured, how is that in anywise accomplished by upsetting five times in nineteen the regular course of procedure ?
It has long ago been declared as settled law, universally approved and followed, that “ a thing which is within the intention of the makers of a statute is as much within the statute as if it were within the letter, and a thing which is within the letter of the statute is not within the statute unless it be within the intention of the makers. ’ ’ People v. Utica Insurance Co., 15 Johnson (N. Y.), 358-380.
This court has furnished some most striking illustrations of construing a statute according to its spirit when that is clearly against the mere letter. See, notably, R. R. Co. v. Trotter, 60 Miss., 442; Ex parte Gore; 57 Miss., 251, and Bates v. Stokes, 40 Miss., 56. Illustrations from other courts might be in definitely-added. We laid down the true rule of construction in Adams v. R. R. Co., 75 Miss., at page 285, which we re-announce, to wit: “A statute must receive such construction as will, if possible, make all its parts harmonize with each other,
Again, contemporaneous construction by those whose duty it is to act under and administer a statute is often times materially helpful. This state of affairs existed in 1895, and yet no one ever pretended that the old board could elect, and so far as the records of this court disclose, the present is the only instance where such contention as appellants make has been advanced. It is also a fundamental rule of construction that courts will not give any statute such construction as would charge upon the legislature folly or absurdity. We can conceive nothing more foreign to the whole spirit and scope of this municipal legislation, which more directly affronts common sense, or which more inevitably imputes folly to the legislature, than the construction which would authorize a defeated board to fasten upon an incoming administration, and the taxpayers of a city, officers not chosen by the new board, and who might be actually hostile to it and unacceptable to the people who elected the new board. We know, of course, nothing about the officers here contending, and are speaking by way of argument merely to show how untenable is the opposite contention. In construing a statute, how .it may operate, and not simply how in a single instance, it does operate, is to be considered. The ordinary operation, not the isolated instance, is material.
All sections relating to the organization of the new mayor and board of aldermen, and the election of their subordinate officers should be looked at as one whole, and collocated so as
We have given the case most careful consideration, as its importance demanded it should be done, and are clearly of the opinion that the new board alone has the power to elect the officers named in § 2992. Relator was elected by the new board, and his term of office dates from that election. The
Affirmed.