Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1858-09-16
Gov Iohn.on and Bdrton,. bond.

u
The position assumed by the Union and
Xnieriioar, in regard to one of the bonds of F.
N. W. Burton. late Secretary of State, is
somewhat peculiar. 1t states in substance
that the Committee have erred in their con-
clusion that the Governor (JoHYsoN) failed
to take the bond'' of DIR. Burton as Commits
sioner of Internal improvements; and further,
that "the evidence is clearly. and we think
exclusively the other way" In this, we
differ with our contemporary. Whose duty was
it to take the bond? We think it wa clearly
the Governors. Section 1. oh 3. l796, enacts,
that "the Secretary of State, before he enters
on the performance of the duties of his office,
shall enter into bond, with two or more suf-
fcient securities, in the penal sum of S20,-
600, payable to the Governor for the time
being, and his successors in Office, for the use
of the State, conditioned, for his faithful per-
Torrance, agreeably to the Constitution, of
the duties enjoined on him by law"
The word require is not used in this act;
but it never has been questioned that, under
its requirements. it is not only the duty Of the
Governor to take the bond of the Secretary
of State, but to decide upon the su6fciency of
the security; and we have no doubt that, in
the case before us, the Governor took BurtOn's
bond as Secretary Of State, believing it to be
his official duty.
By an act passed the 26th January, 1916,
the Secretary of State was appointed Internal
Improvement Commissioner, and another and
add,timaal bond was required of him as such.
The 10th section of said act enacts, ''that
the Secretary Of State, before he enters upon
the discharge of the duties imposed upon him
according to the provisions of this act, shall
first execute bond with good and sufficient
security to the Governor of the State in the
sum of $4,000, conditioned to account
faithfully for all moneys which may come to
his hands and pay over the same as provided
for in this act"
We would ask wherein do these acts differ
in regard to the duty of the Governor to take
the bonds? If it be the duty of the Governor
to take the bond as Secretary of State, it is
Certainly his duty to take this additional bond
of him as Internal Improvement Commits
s;oner. The bond required by the act of 1916,
is only an additional bond required of the
Secretary of State. If it be not the Governors
duty to take the bond, who is to decide upon
the raldity of the bond, and the solue,,cy of the
Sre,ies thereon? Suppose the Secretary should
refuse to give bond. would it not be the
duty of the Governor to require him to do so.
The law does not make it the duty of any
other person to take the bond-it requires
tha IN is no
duty of the Governor to see that it is a legal
bond and that the security is undoubted.
The position assumed by our ncighbor
would place it in the power of the Secretary
to give no bond at all or an insufficient,
invalid, or worthless bond. Our neighbor
says, in substance, that similar law req uired
the Sherifs to give bonds to the Governor;
and he also states 1.-The Governor has no
more to do with the execution of the Score
tary of States bond than he has with the
execution of the Sheriffs'." With due
difference to our neighbor, we can see no
q iaIogy whatever, between these cases.
The Sheriff's bond is made payable to the
Governor, but the law requires the bond to
be taken, and the security to be approved by
the County Court-the language of the
statute is as follows, '',chich sand bond eUery
County Court is hereby required and empowered TO
demand and take and TO be acknowledged
before them IN open Court and recorded" Here
it is made the duty of the County Court to
take the Sheriff's bond. AS far as the simple |
execution of the bond is concerned, it may
be, and generally is, written by some third |
person; but it is certainly the duty of the |
Governor to take the Secretary's bond, and
Judge of its sufficiency. Beyond this, section |
10 of article 3rd, of the Constitution of the |
State of Tennessee, directs that 'he (he Gov
ernor) shall take that the laws be faith
fully executed;' and the Sth section gives
him power to require information in writing
from the officers in the executive department
upon any subject relative to the duties of
their respective offices''-from which we have
always regarded the Governor as occupying
the position of supervisor of all executive
Offices. Conceiving it to be the duty of the
Governor to take the bond, the Committee
addressed him letter. early in the nvestiga-
ton, inquiring whether he had taken the
bond, and if so, what disposition had been
made of it. The reply indicated that the
Governor was of the impression that the bond
had been taken, but the letter shows that he
was not certain, as will be seen by reading it,
1t follows:
WASHINGTON CRY.
May 25th, 1853. {
GENTLEMEN:-Your letter of - inst.
making inquiry in regard to the Secretary of
State making a bond 10 the Governor rs re-
quired by the act referred To. was received by
last nights mail. NV recollection is that the
Secretary of State did execute a bond as re-
quired by law, and that the bond was filed in
the Office of the Secretary Of State, with the
bonds OF the Comptroller. AT this moment
do not remember the names of the securities,
upon the bonds of either Secretary or Comp
troller; ut the time they were deemed good
and sufficient. l viii add, ii may be possible
that these bonds were filed with the bonds Of
the Clerks from the different counties, which
are deposited in the Secretary's Office for safe
keeping.
u have the honor TO be, most respectfully, |
Your obedient serv't,
ANDREW JOHNSON.
Hons. J. ID. Goodpasture. A. +. Gon, T. w.
Newman, NJ. Vaughn, Committee.
The Committee, we are informed, examined
the archives as referred to by Gov. JOHNSON
in this letter, and were unable to find the
bond.
Again, It is the duty of the Secretary