ply with the constitutional provisions determining the validity of legislation and if, under these provisions, election laws are held unconstitutional, this will render an election, held under them,. void and the incumbent will have no further right or title to the office. The rule, however, usually obtains that until such de 94 the person receiving the highest number of votes, not that one whose name appears first on the ballot among the list of candidates. State v. Anderson, 26 Fla. 240, 8 So. 1; Collins v. Russell, 107 Ga. 423, 33 S. E. 444; Cunningham v. George, 2 Idaho, 1196, 31 Pac. 809. County commissioners although representing districts must be elected by the vote of the whole county and not by that of the district. People v. Williams, 145 Ill. 573, 24 L. R. A. 492; Gass v. State, 34 Ind. 425. Courts recognize and apply the rule that statutes regulating the mere mode of conducting elections are directory and that immaterial departures from the prescribed mode will not invalidate an election. State v. Winter, 148 Ind. 177, 47 N. E. 642; Florer v. State, 133 Ind. 453; State v. McFarland, 149 Ind. 266, 39 L. R. A. 282; State v. Finger, 46 Iowa, 25. Where the limits of a town acting under a special charter are COextensive with those of a township, the assessor is an official of the township and not of the town and should be elected at the general township election. Winn v. Board of Park Com'rs, 12 Ky. L. R. 339, 14 S. W. 421; Com. v. Donovan, 170 Mass. 228, 49 N. E. 104; White v. Manistee County Sup'rs, 105 Mich. 608, 63 N. W. 653; Michigan Const. art. 11, § 1, which provides for the election of constables in organized townships does not apply to cities. Ostrander V. Gratiot County Sup'rs, 111 Mich. 64, 69 N. W. 91; State v. Wilder, 75 Minn. 547, 78 N. W. 83; State v. Fiala, 47 Mo. 310; State v. McMillan, 108 Mo.. 153; State v. Woodbury, 17 Nev. 337, 30 Pac. 1006; State v. Sadler,. 25 Nev. 131, 58 Pac. 284, 59 Pac. 546, 63 Pac. 128. A councilman of the city of Reno must be chosen by the electors of his ward only; State v.. Withers, 121 N. C. 376, 28 S. E. 522. Eddy v. Kincaid, 28 Or. 537, 41 Pac. 655. The Australian ballot Law of 1891 does not repeal Hill's Ann. Laws, § 4003, which provides for the election of railway commissioners by the state legislature. Stone v. Reynolds, 7 Okl. 397, 54 Pac. 555. The legislature is authorized to confer the right to hold elections and to elect county officers; an election is void without this authority. Young v. Crawford, 153 Pa. 34, 25 Atl. 617; State v.. Gardner, 3 S. D. 553, 54 N. W. 606; State v. Allen (Tenn. Ch. App.) 57 S. W. 182; State v. Goldstucker, 40* Wis. 124; Bush v. State, 100 Wis. 549, 76 N. W. 606, construing Wisconsin Laws 1897, c. 70, § 1; In re Moore, 4 Wyo. 98, 31 Pac. 980, defining the term "general election" as used in Const. art. 6, § 17, and Sess. Laws 1890-91, p. 115; Id., p. 236, §§ 1, 4. termination one elected is to be considered an officer de facto with all the rights and liabilities accompanying such a status both with respect to the public generally, himself and the public corpora Cullough, 97 Ky. 164, 30 S. W. 193, construing Const. § 152; City of Lexington v. Wilson, 97 Ky. 707, 31 S. W. 471; Sweeney v. Coulter, 109 Ky. 295, 58 S. W. 784, holding Kentucky Election Law of March 11, 1898, constitutional. Pratt v. Breckinridge, 112 Ky. 1, 65 S. W. 136, 66 S. W. 405. Appointment to office being an executive power to be legally exercised by the legislature only where the duties of the office pertain to the legislative department, Kentucky Election Law, March 11, 1898, in so far as it provides for the appointment and election of commissioners by the legislature is an invasion of the powers of the executive and, therefore, unconstitutional in this respect. Spencer v. Griffith, 74 Minn. 55, 76 N. W. 1018; State v. McKee, 69 Mo. 504; State v. Mayhew, 21 Mont. 93, 52 Pac. 981; State v. Dickinson, 26 Mont. 391, 68 Pac. 468; State v. Westcott, 34 Neb. 84, 51 N. W. 599; State v. Welsh, 62 Neb. 721, 87 N. W. 529. County supervisors are to be elected at large; not by the voters of the separate supervisor districts. Brown v. Boden, 51 N. J. Law, 114, 16 Atl. 58; Crookall v. Matthews, 61 N. J. Law, 349, 39 Atl. 659; Boorum v. Connelly, 66 N. J. Law, 197, 48 Atl. 955. New Jersey Act of Feb. 28, 1901, relative to the election of municipal officers is not unconstitutional as being special and local or regulating the internal affairs of cities in contravention of constitution, art. 4, § 7, par. 11, which prohibits the passage of private local or special laws regulating the internal affairs of towns and counties. Cities are regarded as a distinct class and not included within either towns or counties. Wanser v. Hoos, 60 N. J. Law, 482, 38 Atl. 449. Laws 1897, p. 43, relative to the election of municipal officers in cities of the first class which shall consist of those having a population of 100,000 is repugnant to Const. art. 4, § 7, par. 11, since population is not the proper basis for classification for the purpose of the act. People v. Sturges, 21 Misc. 605, 47 N. Y. Supp. 999. An act is not unconstitutional which provides for the election of the presi dent of the village by the trustees instead of an appointment by them as prescribed by Statute, art. 10, § 2. In re Noble, 34 App. Div. 55. 54 N. Y. Supp. 42; People v. Sutphin, 53 App. Div. 613, 66 N. Y. Supp. 49. Construing New York Laws 1873, c. 84, relative to the village of Brockport and holding it not repugnant to Constitution, art. 3, § 16. Kelly v. Van Wyck, 35 Misc. 210, 71 N. Y. Supp. 814; People v. Westchester County Sup'rs, 139 N. Y. 524, 34 N. E. 1106; Rathbone V. Wirth, 150 N. Y. 459, 45 N. E. 15. 34 L. R. A. 408. N. Y. Laws 1896, c. 427, as amending Laws 1870, c. 77, and other acts relative to the police department of the city of Albany not in conflict with Constitution, art. 10, § 2, which provides that "all city, town, and village officers whose election or appointment is not provided for by the constitution, shall be elected by the elec tors of such cities, towns and vil tion.95 Elective offices cannot be made appointive except in the manner creating the basis of the original authority," but it has been held that where a constitution declares an office elective, the legislature may extend its term provided that the term as thus extended does not exceed the time limited by the constitution."7 § 607. Eligibility of candidates for public office. The holding of public office is a special grant or mark of favor by the sovereign. It is not an inherent, a vested or a natural right and the people acting in constitutional convention or ple v. Mosher, 163 N. Y. 32, 57 N. E. 88; People v. Scheu, 167 N. Y. 292, 60 N. E. 650, affirming 60 App. Liv. 592, 69 N. Y. Supp. 597; State v. Meares, 116 N. C. 582, 21 S. E. 973; State v. Kearns, 47 Ohio St. 566, 25 N. E. 1027; State v. Simon, 20 Or. 365, 26 Pac. 170; State v. McAlister, 88 Tex. 284, 31 S. W. 187, 28 L. R. A. 523; Reals v. Smith, 8 Wyo. 159, 56 Pac. 690. Laws 1899, c. 65, § 5, is not a local or special law. 95 Gould v. United States, 19 Ct. Cl. 593; Delphi School Dist. v. Murray, 53 Cal. 29; Pueblo County Com'rs v. Gould, 6 Colo. App. 44, 39 Pac. 895; State v. Nield, 4 Kan. App. 626, 45 Pac. 623; State v. Rost, 47 La. Ann. 53; City of Vicksburg v. Lombard, 51 Miss. 111; Perkins v. Perkins, 24 N. J. Law, (4 Zab.) 409; Haines V. Camden County Chosen Freeholders, 47 N. J. Law, 454; Brinkerhoff v. Jersey City, 64 N. J. Law, 225, 46 Atl. 170; McCoy v. Curtice, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 17; Conover v. Devlin, 15 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 470; People v. White, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 520; In re Board of Health of Lansinburgh, 43 App. Div. 236, 60 N. Y. Supp. 27; In re Kendall, 85 N. Y. 302; State v. Goodwin, 69 Tex. 55, 5 S. W. 678; Hendricks V. Huffmeyer (Tex. Civ. App.) 27 S. W. 777; Williams v. Clayton, 6 Utah, 86, 21 Pac. 398; State v. Superior Ct. of Snohomish County, 17 Wash. 12, 48 Pac. 741. Where an incumbent has duly qualified and is in possession, under a certificate of election properly issued and regular on its face, he is entitled to exercise the duties of his office without interference until his legal right can be adjudicated and a court of equity has jurisdiction to protect this right. 96 Warner v. People, 2 Denio (N. Y.) 272; Ridley v. Sherbrook, 43 Tenn. (3 Cold.) 569. 97 Christy v. Sacramento County Sup'rs, 39 Cal. 3. But see People v. Foley, 148 N. Y. 677, 43 N. E. 171. "The legislature has the power to prescribe the time and manner of holding town meetings for the election of town officers and the transaction of town business. It may designate a single day for that purpose or provide, as it did in this case, for the election of officers on one day and the transaction of the other general business of the town on the following day. The act of 1858 did not change the day for through the state legislature can prescribe such qualifications as they may deem desirable or expedient and which must be possessed by those desiring to become public officials and perform public duties.98 It is not for candidates for public offices to question the expediency or the reasonableness of such provisions. The qualifications required have as their reason the securing of com holding the annual town meeting which was fixed by the board of supervisors under general laws, but it virtually gave to the electors of the town two days to transact the business usually transacted in one in most of the towns of the state. ** That the legislature had the power to so enact cannot be doubted." 98 Jeffries v. Harrington, 11 Colo. 191, 17 Pac. 505. The word "office" as used in Colorado Constitution, art. 7, § 6, does not include a deputy clerkship of a county court and women may hold such deputy clerkships. In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 31 Fla. 1, 18 L. R. A. 594; Hinze v. People, 92 Ill. 406; State v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631; Hudspeth v. Garrigues, 21 La. Ann. 684; State v. Moores, 52 Neb. 770, 73 N. W. 299; Bramhall v. City of Bayonne, 35 N. J. Law, 476; Conklin v. Cunningham, 7 N. M. 445; Fox v. Mohawk & H. R. Humane Soc., 25 App. Div. 26, 48 N. Y. Supp. 625. A corporation cannot take an oath of office and does not possess moral qualities; it is, therefore, not eligible to public office. Ter. v. Stubblefield, 5 Okl. 310, 48 Pac. 112; State v. Stevens, 29 Or. 464; State v. Crawford, 17 R. I. 292, 21 Atl. 546; Ex parte Charles, 48 S. C. 279; Seay v. Hunt, 55 Tex. 545. The legislature may authorize a city council to determine primarily one's eligibility to the office of mayor of the city. This decis ion is not subject to revision in proceedings by quo warranto. State v. Von Baumbach, 12 Wis. 311. Throop, Pub. Off. § 72. "Similarly each state has regulated for itself, and according to its own ideas of public policy, the general qualifications for holding office, or the qualifications for holding particular offices, under the authority of the state. Certain general principles are common to all, and these are styled by a learned writer 'the common political law' of this country. We quote a few sentences from his work, in this connection: "The same descriptions of persons, namely minors, idiots, and lunatics, women, and aliens, who have already been mentioned as excluded from the right of suffrage by the common political law, are also prohibited and for the same reasons, from being elected to any political office whatever. It may also be laid down as a general principle, founded in the nature of representative government, which presupposes the electors, except in particular instances, to elect from among themselves, that no person can be elected to any office who is not himself possessed of the requisite qualifications for an elector; and whatever other and different qualifications or disqualifications may be specified, every person who is voted for must, at all events, possess the qualifications, and be free petent persons, both mentally and physically, to perform the public or governmental duties which may be assigned to them. At the best, officials ordinarily are none too competent to honestly and properly perform their public duties. A high standard of excellence should, at least, be required. The establishment of specific qualifications for the holding of a specific office will in no ways affect the right of a succeeding legislature or of a sovereign body to add to, alter or change them. No vested right can be acquired by any individual to public office or the privilege of holding it through the possession of the qualifications prescribed by statute at any precise moment of time." $608. Qualifications. Since the right to hold a public office is, under our political system, not a natural inherent or vested one, the uniform legislative policy has prescribed, as stated in a preceding section, qualifications for public office which naturally, in their character, relate or depend upon the physical or mental condition of prospective candidates, conditions based upon residence, citizenship or other similar requirements or those depending upon some act of the candidate for office either in respect to his personal or his public life. These requirements may not only apply to the eligibility of a public officer at the time of election or appointment to office but they may also be extended to the existence of a like condition during the entire term for which the official is elected or appointed and if an incumbent of office becomes ineligible at any time during his term, steps may be taken to have the office declared vacant.10 100 from the disqualifications which attach to the character of an elector.'" 99 Hall v. Hostetter, 56 Ky. (17 B. Mon.) 785; State v. Woodson, 41 Mo. 227; State v. Dunn, 73 N. C. 595; Ter. v. Stubblefield, 5 Okl. 310. See, also, §§ 597 and 598, ante. 100 Kean v. Rizer, 90 Md. 507, 45 Atl. 468. "The question in this "ase involves a construction of certain sections of the city charter of Cumberland, Md. By the act of 1898. c. 158, it is provided that each and every member of the city council shall be the bona fide owner in his own right of property to the amount of $500 and assessed for the same on the books of the city at the time of his election and for the next year prior thereto, the taxes on which shall not be in arrears. And the act further provides that the mayor and each member of the city council shall, during the whole term for which they are elected, be possessed of all the qualifications rendering them eligi |