Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-06-08

| ana commentators of the constitution, il ne
! Inc generally held that the concurrence OF
| the senate was only intended as i check
upon the president, and its action contiuei
| 10 simple affirmation or rejection Of tie
| presidents appointment
| > Opinions Atty.-Ccn., $50: IOi, 81:
| The t'edcraISt, No. ii; story on The Con
! Stttution. section 1881, ! Brvce'S Amer
J Com, 81
| The language Of the statute under consid-
| GRAFTON Is substantially that Of The Federal
| constitution and if under the ate the ap-
| pointnent Is the sole act OF the president il
| S necessarily tn, sole act OF the governor
| Under the former. AMI consequently, : not
| IN part the act Of the senate
| There Is another view of the question
| which leads 10 the sane conclusion The
| prohibition IS leve.ed only Al ott!res or
\ places the appointment "a which may be
! made III whole or i'm part by either branch
| of the lee stature 1t Is well known that in
| The convention wnicn framed 'le cuuStItu-
| tuition StTon" effort was made to
! declare members &C the leLiS-4t--,e
Ineligible TO many offices during
he term for which they We're elected. and
10 TINS emf distinguish, d delegate sought
20 amend the clause under consideration hr
substituting for all after the word eligible
the following: To any other Office in this
state or the government Oi The United
states. elected by any part OF the people OF
his state or BY ,Hc legislature. jour
ronv. 209 l. will t observed rh"T even
The advocates of tine hroaus>s pc
hibitory policy did not seek 20 render
luembcrS of the legislature Ineligible 10
officers which might be- fled bl The GOV
ernor, but the inhibition was limited tn
offices or places the appointment or elec-
Ticl 10 which We're 10 b. made
Ol Ie legislature or lie people.
This amendment. however was re
ecteJi and I Is Impossible U0t 70 attach
significance TO this action OF the C0uysn-
zion. II positively declined 10 cNtend the
prohibition beyond appointments Made IN
whole or in part by Ell her branch of the
legislature. ana ala We, OF tG.S deliberate
action il is believed that the intention 'res
10 limit the ineligihIIity 10 cases in wnic',
Que branch of the legislature was clearly
and unequivocal.y invested with the power
Of appointment ii whole or !u part The
constitution does not prohibit The legiSla-
tlre from vestjng the appointment of many
offices already existing. and others Wh.rh
may be created directly in the house or Ssr.-
ate, in whole y in part, ana the JlSqUaut' o.
ton WAS no doubt intended for such
cases Had the pl,:pOsc been 10 t.lSJudlIfN
Legislators from holding Offices the arpoint-
menJ 70 which the senate must consent ~
rather than take part in mali..@ IL Is Iu De
presumed such intention Wvu,G have been
clearly expressed. Matters OF such i'm
portducc discriminating 1g&'r-,t one class
of citizens and DENYING Ten equal priv
lCEeS with the great body OF the people.
cannot be given effect upon more inference
aud construction. NJ purpose being shown
in the convention to declare legislators IL
eligible to Offices appoints" s"ieiy by the
governor either by the advocates
OF the clause adopted or The broader
org rejected. an Interpretation w,Lch
would extend rhe prohibition to APP
pointnentS which all must adm1 are
al least vested primarily IN the governor.
though coupled with condition, would both
violate the fundamental ru,e thai diSqUai,-
flying provisions should be strictly con
Strued and he repugnant I" the spirit of ne
constitution .nd the evident intention "f its
trainers.
Il follows. therefore. that in ne opinion
of this department your appointment was
not in violation of the constitution Very
respectfully. e y. CULUEE~o>.
AItorney-t ,eT era,