Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1881-04-06
A QUESTION or TASTE AND
LAW.


Some of the lawyers in the Legisla-
ture take exception to the action of the
State Treasurer and Auditor General
in calling upon the Attorney General
for advice as to the constitutionality
Of the law giving o per diem pay to
the members beyond the hundred days,
and to that of the Attorney General
in undertaking to decide tho question
propoundod to him. Senator Stewart,
who is a lawyer of much ability and
man Of spotless repute, declared in the
Senate that since the acts of the Legis-
lature are presumed to be constitutional
the State Treasurer, who is but an ex.
ocuive official, must pay such warrants
as are drawn on him by the Speakers
of the two bodies of the Legislature
pursuant to the law, and that tho only
proper way TO prohibit such payment
is by mandamus from the Supreme
Court. He declares that the Attorney
General would have acted more prop
erly il he had replied to the officers
consulting him, that "it docs not con-
Germ you whether this act is constitu.
tional or not the act Of Assembly pro.
vidos that you shall pay upon certain
warrants !" and they should pay them
unlessaihhibited by the Supreme Court.
That may be good law; but We do
not believe it is. 1t may have been
more decorous way OF proceeding 7;
but we cannot admit even that Nor
can we concede that Senator Stewards
construction is the sensible one. To
us it seems that the State officers, just
like each citizen, are amenable to the
law and to bo governed by it, The
question with every one, in considering
his acts, must be, as it lawful !" lfhe
does not know, his proper course is to
consult his legal counsel. Just this the
Auditor General and State Treasurer
did Their proper counsel was the
Attorney General. The law imposes
upon him tho duty Of answering the
questions of these officers about their
official acts. II therefore makes it
their duty to consult him concerning
them when they are in doubt.
Now, what can more surely invali.
date the law than its unconstituton.
ality2 If in violation of the funda-
mental law, an act Of Assembly is ab.
soutely void and commands the obedi-
ence of no one, how then can 1t COM
mand that of the States servants,
though they are but its executive Off.
GERS 1t is just by those officers that
the laws need to be construed, for it is
their province to execute them. 1t
seems to be quite untenablo TO hold
that they are obliged to blindy accept
the statutes upon faith, and to suppress
doubts they may have of their consti-
tutionality and this, though it be sug-
gested that they do so in obedience TO
the demand ola supposed "good taste. "
An officer OF the people has no bust
ness to consider a question of good
taste in constituting question Of law.
IL may bo in better taste for q servant
TO obey his master and TO leave the
uuttAlOn VI lnt lANihllNHn VI HIS uth W
him TO determine. But this is not
where the law leaves the responsibility.
A wife may excuse her criminahty by
alleging her husbands duress but not
mans servant, nor the peoples.
Unquostionably the Supreme Court
is the final arbiter Of the question Of a
laws constitutionality. But that in no
way relieves an officer of the State
from the duty Of deciding upon his
primary action according to the best
light he can get We hold that in this
case 1t was lawful, right and "becom.
ing" for the Auditor General and State
Treasurer TO ask and for the Attorney
General TO answer, upon oil the facts
made public. If, as is charged, they
had a sinister design in their action, "a
cause an early adjournment Of tho Leg
islaturo and 80 defeat legislation they
wanted defeated, then they certainly