Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-09-14
COMMUNICATION.



Committee. after stating the amount Of the secreta-
rvs defalcstion, conclude with the following para
graph, in which they assume that the law makes it
tbe duty of the Governor to require the Secretary Of
State to execute bond, Sc. The paragraph Is
follows:
An act nassed Japuarv o. 1876, makes it the du-
y of the Governor to require the Secretary Of state
before he enters upon the discharge of his duties as
Commissioner Of Internal Improvements 70 exc
cute a bond with good and sufficient security IN
the sum of $40 900, conditioned to account ior Su
nav over all moneys provided LOT IN sau scI, In
committee would state that they have carelully eA-
oned the registry of bonds in the office Of Secre'
tary of State, and the papers and books OF me O>
euit Court of Davidson county, where the oeOreta,
rvs bond is required by law to be deposited ana
have not been able to find the bond Of MI burton;
as Commissioner of Internal Improvements, anu
are satisfied that the Governor failed to take the
same.
Altar reading the law we are free to confess that
We .anpot see how the Committee felt authorized to
state tbelav TO be- as they have in the above para
,roDb and ne have concluded that the phraseOlogy
has besu the result Of inadvertance. In this con-
nection we will quote the act to which we presume
they intended to refer:
ssEo. TO- Be Il enacted, That the Secretary OF
Stota before he enters upon the discharge OF the
5utjes imposed upon him, according to the preyis-
ions of this At shall first execute bond with goou
and cieat security to the Governor OF the STATE
in the snn Of $780, 00 conditioned TO account faith
fully for all monies which may come TO his hands,
and nav over the same as provided for in this act"
Passed January %, 1916. See acts 1896, page 81
Upon examining the law it must be apparent that
thew did not intend to use the language which they
have in stating what they conceive the law to be.
The law is plain and without ambiguity, and with
the change of one or two words, they would have
stated the law as it is. The Committee, no doubt,
intended to use the following language: "That an
act passed January %, 1876, requires the secreta-
~ of State before he enters upon the discharge OF
his duties as Commissioner of Internal Improve
ments. to execute bond to the Governor with good
and sufficient security in the of $4,000, con-
ditioned. &C." Withthis slight alteration, the Com
mttee would have stated what the Law in substance
ia and in stating the law what it is, would have ex
onerated the Governor from any implication of ar
omission of duty in reference to the execution Of
bond by the Secretary of State. The Ia0 requires tn
Secretary of State 10 execute the bond to The GoUnor
and not the Governor to require of the Secretary, 81
stated by the Committee. The phaseology employ
ed in the act, "That the Secretary shall execute
bond to the Governor" &c., means nothing NOR
nor less than simply making the bond payable Il
the Governor, as will more fully appear when refer
ence is had to all the Law upon this subject. 1t vii
also be perceived from the reading of the 10th sec
ton of the act of 1885, that no provision is made
to where or in whose hands the bond given by tn
Secretary as Commissioner of Internal Improvement
{ shall be deposited.
It will be seen from this reference to the law
: that it was the duty Of the Secretary Of State
execute the bond, before he was competent to ente
+ upon the discharge of his duties IS Commissioner
|, Internal improvements, and his failure to do sc
t would have been no fault of the Governor, but
failure on the part Of the SeerstGry.
The Committee further state in the latter part {
the paragraph as above quoted, that they examine
the registry in the seoretarys Office andOfthe Circu
+ Court Clerks office of Davidson county, and haV
e found no bond of Mr.. Burton's as Commissioner {
Internal improvements, and therefore are satisfe
that the Governor failed to take the same We d
not think that the Committee are with all due defe
d enee warranted in their conclusion; because the
= have found no bond either in the Clerks Office
Secreiary's Office, that none had been executed ID
Mr. Burton as required of him by law, and that Ii
Governor had been dereliet in the discharge Of an
= duty imposed on him 1t would be very easy for
It Secretary of State who would receive and misus
! the public funds to purloin, procure the posse
;. sion of his bond and thereby relieve his securid
p from further liability to the State. The Commits
might have given it as their opinion, have STATE
ID the fact that there was no bond on file in either
the Offices referred to, at the time they made Il
search or the examination for the proof was befO
g them that Mr. Burton had executed q bond. Go
is Johnson in his reply to the Committee Of May 25t
TE ~ prr-fo 4
o execute bond required by law, and that the boz
n was filed in the Office of Secretary Of State with
sr bonds of the Comptroller;-and We may add IN th
n connection. that Dr. Burton confirms this stateme
lie 5y his positive declaration that the bond '0as execute
Thusit appears from this examination, notWithstsn
Is ing the law did not impose any duty on the Cover
le or in regard to the execution Of bond BY the Sc
ss retary of State, Commissioner of Internal II
III provenents, yet, the facts show that the Govern
u did receive the bond executed by the Commission
&c and fled it with the bonds of the Comptroller,
d. the Secretary of States Office, where the bond
+ the former Commissioner Mr. RAMSEY, which "
y executed to NEIL s. Brown, then Governor of Il
&c State WAS on file It seems that Gov. NEIL
he BRowN considered the Office of the Secretary
IL State. proper place for the safe keeping of Il
n Commssioner's bond, as well as Gov. JOHNSON, al
he this opinion is justified by the fact that
lg Secretary of State, as such, executes a boz
with approved security for the custody of all Ofioi
IT, papers which may be committed to his care by Il
III Governor. Both gentlemen were doubtless inf
enced by knowledge of the responsibility of Il
Secretary and his securities in regarding his office
Of proper depository for the Commissioners bond
m Since our attention has been called to this sui
ieet. we have examined all the laws in reference
the execution of bonds to the Secretary of State an
find that there is not the slightest foundation for an
- imputstiOn by the Committee or any one else as
u the manner in which the Governor has discharge
n his duties With respect to this whole affair, he star
!, above and beyond implication. The act of 1896 r.
ouires the Secretary of State, to execute bond f
he the faithful discharge of his duties, which is 70
is lows:
As SECTION l. The Secretary Of State, before he er
t tiers on the performance of the duties of his Ofc
shall enter into bond with two or more sufficient 81
curites in the penal sum oftwenty thousand dollar
- payable to the Governor for the time being, and b
= successors in Office for the of the State, cOnd
IS toned, "&o. A Act of 1896, c. & n, page 649.
This act requires the Secretary of State to execu