peace to be elected in precincts should be provided by law, and that all precinct officers at the time the state was admitted into the Union should hold their offices until their successors had qualified, an act was held unconstitutional which directed the redistricting of the counties and provided a day in which justices' precincts were abolished and the terms of the justices in office terminated, where there was no provision for election before that day. High v. State (1913) 14 Ariz. 429, 130 Pac. 611.

Where the legislature is given power by the Constitution to abolish the office of justice of the peace in certain precincts by substituting a new court, an act abolishing such office and substituting a new court will be void if it erects a new court differing in jurisdiction from that intended by the Constitution. State v. Roden (1916) — Ala. —, 73 So. 657.

Where the Constitution provides that each court shall appoint its own clerk who shall hold his office during good behavior, the legislature having created a probate court and the judge having appointed a clerk, the legislature could not abolish the office of clerk and devolve its duties upon the judge. Runnels v. State (1823) Walk. (Miss.) 146.

It is within the constitutional authority of the legislature by general law to abolish the office of register of probate and insolvency, and transfer the powers and duties thereof to a new officer called the clerk of the court of probate and insolvency, where the Constitution requires the legislature to prescribe, by general law, for the election by the people of registers of probate, as well as clerks of the courts of common law, in each county, but expressly leaves it to the legislature to prescribe the term of office, and restricts the power of the legislature over such officers in no other respect. Opinion of Justices (1875) 117 Mass. 603.

It was the phrase, "unless otherwise provided," on which the court particularly relied in French v. Com. (1875) 78 Pa. 339, where the Constitution gave power to the legislature to

establish an orphans' court in any county, and provided that in such case the register of wills should be clerk thereof, and that in such case the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas in orphans' court proceedings should cease. It was held that in such a case the clerk of the common pleas could not claim that he was entitled to continue to be clerk in orphans' court proceedings during his term by the constitutional declaration that "all persons in office in this commonwealth at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, and at the first election under it, shall hold their respective offices until the time for which they have been elected or appointed shall expire, and until their successors shall be duly qualified, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution."

2. General principles.

In the absence of constitutional restrictions, express or implied, the legislature may abolish offices.

The legislature, to simplify elections and to prevent duplication of public duties, may abolish the former office of trustees of a town and declare that certain town officers shall be ex officio the board of trustees. Sammis v. Huntington (1919) 186 App. Div. 463, 174 N. Y. Supp. 610.

Where the board of trustees of a state university had created an office thereunder and elected a person to fill it for a certain term, the legislature might abolish the office, and such a law does not violate the obligation of any contract. Vincenheller V. Reagan (1901) 69 Ark. 460, 64 S. W. 278.

The legislature may abolish a city office. Cutshaw v. Denver (1904) 19 Colo. App. 341, 75 Pac. 22 (office abolished before appointment of plaintiff); Atty. Gen. ex rel. Maybury v. Bolger (1901) 128 Mich. 355, 87 N. W. 366; Kendall v. Canton (1876) 53 Miss. 526; Demarest v. New York (1878) 74 N. Y. 161; Demarest v. Wickham (1875) 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 314, affirmed on another ground in (1875) 63 N. Y. 320; People ex rel. Devery v. Coler (1903) 173 N. Y. 103, 65 N. E. 956; McHugh v. Cincinnati (1871) 13 Ohio Dec. Reprint, 466; State ex rel.

Atty. Gen. v. Covington (1876) 29 Ohio St. 102 (in effect); Com. ex rel. Elkin v. Moir (1901) 199 Pa. 534, 53 L.R.A. 837, 85 Am. St. Rep. 801, 49 Atl. 351; Robbins v. Wilkes-Barre (1908) 37 Pa. Super. Ct. 382.

Illustrations may be found in the consolidation of several communities into the present city of New York. People ex rel. Tate v. Dalton (1899) 158 N. Y. 204, 52 N. E. 1119; People ex rel. Quinn v. Feitner (1898) 30 App. Div. 241, 51 N. Y. Supp. 1094, affirmed in (1898) 156 N. Y. 694, 50 N. E. 1093; People ex rel. Joyce v. Van Wart (1899) 36 App. Div. 518, 55 N. Y. Supp. 522, affirmed in (1899) 158 N. Y. 720, 53 N. E. 1130; People ex rel. Eastmond v. Oakley (1904) 93 App. Div. 535, 87 N. Y. Supp. 856, appeal dismissed in (1904) 179 N. Y. 513, 71 N. E. 1136.

Where a city was empowered to appoint cotton weighers, who should possess the exclusive right to weigh cotton therein, at a compensation to be prescribed by the local government, and who should be removable at their discretion, the city appointed the plaintiff to the office for one year, he agreeing to pay therefor the sum of $1,000, of which he actually paid $400, it was competent for the legislature to abolish the office during the term, but the court considered also that the constitutional question was not properly raised. Kendall v. Canton (1876) 53 Miss. 526.

The legislature may abridge the terms of aldermen of a city and provide for a new board. Long v. New York (1880) 81 N. Y. 425.

Where the legislature has authorized gifts to certain municipal officers and their successors in office upon a perpetual trust, it may direct the trustees to pay over the funds to other officers and devolve the trust upon them. Smith v. Westcott (1891) 17 R. I. 366, 13 L.R.A. 217, 22 Atl. 280.

In Demarest v. New York (1878) 74 N. Y. 161, it was held that the legislature might abolish the office of assistant alderman of the city of New York although the office was created by the Dongan charter of 1686 and confirmed by the Montgomerie charter of 1730. The court said: "It is pro

vided in § 18 of article 1 of the Constitution that nothing contained in the Constitution shall annul any charter to bodies politic and corporate, made or granted by or under the King of Great Britain, prior to October 14, 1775. This provision is not a restraint upon legislative power, but simply a declaration that the Constitution itself shall not annul such charters. But the act now in question does not annul any charter; it simply amends or alters the charter. The sole object of that constitutional provision was to leave the charters referred to intact so far as the operation of the Constitution itself was concerned." This act of the legislature was also approved in Demarest V. Wickham (1875) 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 312, affirmed on another ground in (1875) 63 N. Y. 320.

It has been held that the abolishment of a city corporation abolishes its offices. Ward v. Elizabeth City (1897) 121 N. C. 1, 27 S. E. 993.

But it was held in one case that a new charter for a city which abolishes old offices and restores them under new names will not oust the former incumbents. Malone v. Williams (1907) 118 Tenn. 391, 121 Am. St. Rep. 1002, 103 S. W. 798, where, however, the charter was otherwise unconstitutional.

The legislature may by increasing the requirement of population in a county to entitle it to a county auditor abolish the office in counties no longer having the required population and thus throw out of office their auditors. Lawson v. Reno County (1891) 47 Kan. 271, 27 Pac. 998.

The office of coroner ceased to be a constitutional office in New York in 1894, and the legislature might abolish it in the city of New York. Senior v. Boyle (1917) 221 N. Y. 414, 117 N. E. 618.

The legislature might abolish county coroners in a city and make the office a city office. Tuthill v. New York (1899) 29 Misc. 555, 61 N. Y. Supp. 968, conceded in People ex rel. Burger v. Blair (1899) 21 App. Div. 213, 47 N. Y. Supp. 495, affirmed in (1897) 154 N. Y. 734, 49 N. E. 1102.

The legislature may authorize inferior bodies to abolish nonconstitutional offices. Thus, the legislature may authorize a municipality to abolish offices. Wilkinson v. Birmingham (1915) 193 Ala. 139, 68 So. 999; State ex rel. Terry v. Lanier (1916) 197 Ala. 1, 72 So. 320; Jacksonville v. Bowden (1914) 67 Fla. 181, L.R.A.1916D, 913, 64 So. 769, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 99; People ex rel. Fowler v. Brown (1876) 83 Ill. 95; Madison v. Kelso (1869) 32 Ind. 79; Goodwin v. State (1895) 142 Ind. 117, 41 N. E. 359.

The legislature may give a city power to accept a new charter which in effect will vacate old offices not continued. People ex rel. Fowler v. Brown (1876) 83 Ill. 95.

A city office created by a city council may be abolished by the governing commission of the city, so authorized by the act creating a commission form of government. Wilkinson v. Birmingham (1915) 193 Ala. 139, 68 So. 999.

The legislature, having provided for a commission form of government for cities, may enact that the cities choosing such form may vote to return to the old form and that on such vote the office of the commission may be abolished. State ex rel. Terry v. Lanier (1916) 197 Ala. 1, 72 So. 320.

A new charter adopted by the people of a city will abolish an office under the old charter when that is the intent. Sanders v. Kansas City (1913) 175 Mo. App. 367, 162 S. W. 663.

It may be noted that a statute providing that a city council for cause might remove any officers appointed by them under the statute enables the council where a police force was established by ordinance to disband it for lack of means. Hoboken v. Gear (1859) 27 N. J. L. 265.

The legislature may authorize a city board to reduce the number of their subordinates (for economy). People ex rel. McCarthy v. French (1881) 25 Hun (N. Y.) 111.

Where by the charter persons appointed "additional police patrolmen❞ may be removed at any time by the board of police without assigning cause, a person so appointed for a year may be removed from office dur

ing the year by said board. Chicago v. Edwards (1871) 58 Ill. 252.

A state law giving police commissioners of a city power to reduce the police force is not superseded by the provisions of a charter adopted by the city under a constitutional provision that the city may adopt a charter for its own government which must be, however, "consistent with and subject to the Constitution and laws of the state." State ex rel. Goodnow v. Police Comrs. (1902) 184 Mo. 109, 71 S. W. 215, 88 S. W. 27.

The legislature, having provided that firemen in cities may not be discharged without cause, may later give fire commissioners authority to abolish offices. Fire Comrs. v. Lyon (1891) 53 N. J. L. 632, 23 Atl. 274.

In Lincoln v. Yeomans (1892) 34 Neb. 329, 51 N. W. 844, the appointing excise board of a city was held authorized under the charter to reduce the police force for sake of economy.

Where the statute provides that the school committee of a city may dismiss any teacher whenever they think proper, they may abolish a school and accordingly dismiss the teacher, and she may not recover any salary for the time after her dismissal although she was employed for a year and was paid quarterly and dismissed in the middle of a quarter. Knowles v. Boston (1859) 12 Gray (Mass.) 339.

The legislature, having authorized counties in their discretion to provide for election to an office, may thereafter authorize counties to abolish the office, and a county accordingly may abolish the office and thus oust the incumbent during his term. Stanfield v. State (1892) 83 Tex. 319, 18 S. W. 577; State ex rel. Maxwell v. Crumbaugh (1901) 26 Tex. Civ. App. 521, 63 S. W. 925.

For an illustration of a statute authorizing towns having three commissioners of highways to change to one after the existing terms expire, see People v. Tabor (1861) 21 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 42.

It was held in Re Summit Hill (1912) 50 Pa. Super. Ct. 117, that the legislature may authorize the court of quarter sessions to divide boroughs in

to wards and to combine one or more wards into one, thus abolishing some offices.

It may be noted that it has been held that, upon the abolition of a state board without a saving clause as to its appointments, the authority of those persons who merely held office during its pleasure ceases. State ex rel. Carter v. Public Lands & Buildings (1878) 7 Neb. 42.

A statute creating county school boards directed that they should elect a nonmember secretary; a board elected a secretary and fixed his term at two years. A new statute legislated

the boards out of office and a new board elected a new secretary. The old secretary could not claim that his term of two years had not expired. Duer v. Dashiell (1900) 91 Md. 660, 47 Atl. 1040.

The legislature may abolish offices. created by it.

Alabama.-Hawkins v. Roberts & Son (1898) 122 Ala. 130, 27 So. 327; Touart v. State (1911) 173 Ala. 453, 56 So. 211 (obiter); State ex rel. Terry v. Lanier (1916) 197 Ala. 1, 72 So.

California. People ex rel. McMinn v. Haskell (1855) 5 Cal. 357 (obiter); Re Bulger (1873) 45 Cal. 553 (abolish or abridge terms); People ex rel. Daniels v. Henshaw (1888) 76 Cal. 436, 18 Pac. 413 (in effect); People ex rel. Miller v. Davie (1896) 114 Cal. 363, 46 Pac. 150 (abolish or shorten term); Mansfield v. Chambers (1915) 26 Cal. App. 499, 147 Pac. 595.

Delaware.-State ex rel. McVey v. Burris (1901) 4 Penn. 3, 49 Atl. 930.

Georgia. Dallis v. Griffin (1903) 117 Ga. 408, 43 S. E. 758.

Illinois. People ex rel. Murphy v. Lippincott (1873) 67 Ill. 333.

Indiana.—Mullen v. State (1870) 34 Ind. 540; Blakemore v. Dolan (1875) 50 Ind. 194 (or shorten term); State ex rel. Yancey v. Hyde (1891) 129 Ind. 296, 13 L.R.A. 79, 28 N. E. 186.

Iowa.--Younker v. Susong (1916) 173 Iowa, 663, 156 N. W. 24.

Louisiana.-State ex rel. Fortier v.

Missouri. - State ex rel. Circuit Atty. v. Hermann (1881) 11 Mo. App. 43 (sustaining the principle but considering that the offices were vacated, not abolished).

Montana.-State ex rel. McGinniss v. Dickinson (1902) 26 Mont. 391, 68 Pac. 468.

Nebraska.-State ex rel. Topping v. Houston (1913) 94 Neb. 445, 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 227, 143 N. W. 796 (obiter).

New York.-Allison v. Welde (1902) 172 N. Y. 421, 65 N. E. 263; People ex rel. Holmes v. Lane (1900) 53 App. Div. 531, 65 N. Y. Supp. 1004.

North Carolina.-Brown v. Turner (1874) 70 N. C. 93.

Pennsylvania.-Com. ex rel. Braughler v. Weir (1895) 165 Pa. 284, 30 Atl. 835; Donohugh v. Roberts (1881) 11 W. N. C. 186.

Tennessee.-Jones v. Hobbs (1874) 4 Baxt. 113; State ex rel. Halsey v. Gaines (1879) 2 Lea, 316; State ex rel. Coleman v. Campbell (1875) 3 Shannon, Cas. 355.

Utah.-State ex rel. Hall v. Howell (1903) 26 Utah, 55, 72 Pac. 187. Washington. - Bogue V. Seattle (1898) 19 Wash. 396, 53 Pac. 548. Wisconsin. State V. Douglas (1870) 26 Wis. 428, 7 Am. Rep. 87.

See also, as stating the rule: Greer v. Merchants & M. Bank (1914) 114 Ark. 212, 169 S. W. 802; Jeffries v. Rowe (1878) 63 Ind. 592; Standeford v. Wingate (1866) 2 Duv. (Ky.) 440; Davis v. State (1854) 7 Md. 151, 61 Am. Dec. 331; State ex rel. Baughn v. Ure (1912) 91 Neb. 31, 135 N. W. 224; State ex rel. Woodsides v. McDaniel (1883) 19 S. C. 114.

See also Bryon v. Jumel (1880) 32 La. Ann. 442 (where the claimant of salary had been elected but had not qualified at the time the law abolish

ing the court was promulgated), Wilcox v. Rodman (1870) 46 Mo. 322, (where the statute establishing the office stated that "this chapter may be amended, modified, and repealed by the legislature at pleasure)" and Head V. University of State (1870) 47 Mo. 220, affirmed in (1874) 19 Wall. (U. S.) 526, 22 L. ed. 160 (where the legislature passed an act vacating an office where the term was for six years "subject to law)."

A territorial legislature may abolish an office of its creation (Territory ex rel. Fisk v. Rodgers (1870) 1 Mont. 252 [obiter]), or declare it vacant (People ex rel. Robertson v. Van Gaskin (1885) 5 Mont. 352, 6 Pac. 30).

It was held in Younker v. Susong (1916) 173 Iowa, 663, 156 N. W. 24, that the office of justice of the peace, being created by the legislature, may be abolished by it, where the judicial power was vested in part "in such other courts, inferior to the supreme court, as the general assembly may from time to time establish," although the jurisdiction of justices of the peace was defined by the Constitution.

In the absence of constitutional prohibition the legislature may abolish the office of judge of a court which it created. Crozier v. Lyons (1887) 72 Iowa, 401, 34 N. W. 186.

In White v. Ayer (1900) 126 N. C. 570, 36 S. E. 132, it was held that "the legislature may reduce the salary of an existing legislative office, if this is done for the benefit of the public, and not for the purpose of injuring the incumbent and to starve him out;" and where only a part of the salary is taken from the officer, it must appear from the legislation itself that the object was unlawful, or the court will not interfere.

The legislature's power to abolish offices created by it is not affected by a provision in the Constitution for the impeachment and removal of officers. Thus a constitutional provision providing for the impeachment and removal of county officers other than those created by the Constitution does not prevent the legislature from abolishing offices of its creation. Hawkins v. Roberts & Son (1898) 122 Ala. 130,

27 So. 327. So, the power of the legislature to abolish an office created by it and create another with similar duties in order to provide a place for a certain person is not limited by a constitutional provision that officers may be impeached or removed in such manner as may be prescribed by law. State ex rel. Yancey v. Hyde (1891) 129 Ind. 296, 13 L.R.A. 79, 28 N. E. 186.

In People ex rel. Swift v. Luce (1912) 204 N. Y. 478, 97 N. E. 850, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1151, it was held that the New York court of claims was not a court, but a mere board of audit, and that there was no objection to its abolition by the legislature.

An office attached by the legislature to the lieutenant governor ex officio may be taken away by the legislature. Denver v. Hobart (1874) 10 Nev. 28.

The legislature in creating a certain county court, having provided that the clerk of the superior court of the county should be clerk of the county court, might later provide that the judge of the county court should appoint the clerk. State ex rel. Wessolowski v. Gilbert (1874) 51 Ga. 227.

Where the legislature established a county and later repealed the act, it was held the sheriff of the abolished county could not make an arrest under a writ addressed to him as sheriff of such county. Mills v. Williams (1850) 33 N. C. (11 Ired. L.) 558.

But where a statute appointed a commissioner and directed that the governor make a contract with him, he is not a public officer, and the state cannot withdraw from the contract by repealing the statute. Hall v. Wisconsin (1880) 103 U. S. 5, 26 L. ed. 302, reversing (1875) 39 Wis. 79.

VII. Abolition by city.

Ordinarily, in the absence of restrictions, when a city has power to create an office it may abolish it.

Connecticut.-State ex rel. Rylands v. Pinkerman (1893) 63 Conn. 136, 22 L.R.A. 653, 28 Atl. 110.