This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
286
CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT
[26 Ark.

State v. Johnson.
[December

within which the qualification should take place, such a provision would have been directory, but such is not the character of the schedule. The command, and the use of the word "shall," denotes command, that the officer shall qualify within fifteen days after having been duly notified of his election, is nothing more nor less than a grant to qualify within that time.

Another well settled rule of construction is, that "no word ever should be rejected, if the statute will admit of a rational and consistent construction, without rejecting it." 3 Ohio 193; 8 Ohio State, 564. Now, why should the words, "within fifteen days after they have been duly notified of their election or appointment," be stricken out of the schedule? It is reasonable to presume that these words were placed in the schedule for some purpose, if so, what right have we to reject them, or treat them as surplusage?

What reason or object could the Constitutional Convention have had by the use of the words, "within fifteen days after they have been duly notified of their election or appointment," if it was not to place a limitation on the time in which an officer was to qualify? The mere inseition of any number of days, within which an officer was to qualify, evidences an intention to limit the time in which the person elected or appointed, should qualify.

But counsel for respondent urge that there is no declaration that the person elected shall not qualify after the fifteen days, and that because there is not, that qualification at any subsequent time may be pleaded in bar against the State, in an action or proceeding commenced to recover the office from one who has not complied with the terms of the grant. If this should be the rule of construction applied to statutes, it would become necessary for the Legislature, in every instance, in a statute to declare, if the thing to be done was not done at the time fixed by law, that it should be void. This rule of construction would create interminable confusion with a large majority of our present statutes, and work irreparable mischief if it once attained a foothold.