Semi-weekly Louisianian. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1871-1872, 1871-07-13

up that the claim ia not due. The
ehly question to be declined is wheth-
'er the bills have been properly ap-.
proved. On trislit was admitted
that on the 23rd day of June,
1871, Gov. H. c. Warmoth was in
the State, but on the 28th of June
he was absent from the State.
The relator offered in evidence q
detailed bin. This account is in
dorsed, Examined June 81, 1871,
and found correct. Geo. E. Bovee,
Secretary Printing Commissioners,
Also Approved June "a, 1871. g.
W. Garter, Speaker of the House of
Representatives" Also, "Approv-
ed June. %, 1871. o. j. Dunn,
Lieutenant Governor" Also, CAP
proved June %, 1871. Cd. Dunn,
Acting Governor of Louisiana"
If these approvals were otherwise
sufficient, it seems to me that they
must be considered defective from
the fact that the approval of the
Lieutenant Governor was first writ
ten on June %, He could not act
in the double capacity Of Governor
and Lieutenant Governor at the
same time. It may be that the re-
lator would be able to explain OF
this alternative, but in the absence
of such explanation in the record I
would not issue the writ. @
However, an examination of these
laws relative to the public printing
satisfies me that the approval of the
acting Governor who has first ap-
proved az Lieutenant Governor, is
not sufficient.
The officers named are constitu-
ted a special commission for q spe-
ciffic purpose. The Secretary of
State writes himself Secretary of
the Printing Commissioners. The
first statute, which seems to have
been carefully prepared, authorizes
a majority of them to enter into
contracts for printing. But the Sec
ond law, which was enacted at the
time of the impeachment of the late
Auditor, who was accused of fraud
in the measurement and payment
of certain bills for printing, directs
the officers designated to supervise
the public printing and to approve
all bills.
These several official acts Of Civ
ing printing contracts, supervising
the printing and auditing the bills
do not come within the constitu-
tional duties of the officers designa-
ted.
This is particularly shown by the
fact that in making the contracts
either the Governor, Lieutenan,
Governor, or the Speaker, may fail
to act without affecting the contract
1t would he otherwise if they were
acting under their duties as consti
trtional officers. But in the mat
ter o. the approval of the bills, the
law has provided that all of the
commissioners must consent. There
must be an agreement Of three
minds, not of two.
This provision, it seems, should
be interpreted by the rule applied
to corporations. If a number o
persons are appointed for parjic
ular purpose, all must act.
During the absence of the Gov
ernor from the State the Lieutenan
Governor performs such executiv,
. functions as the constitution anC
, laws have imposed upon the heac
of tire executive department.
But in this case he is not called
, upon to act as Chief Magistrate
but to take the place of the Cover
, nor in board of commissioners; t,
= become one Of three of which he j
: one. The law contemplates tn
a t on of three.
: The return of the respondent i
I sufficient. 1t is therefore ordere
e that the peromptory writ Of mand
{ anus be refused.