The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1891-10-24
THE AANDAMUs kuDDLR

Attorneys General Lamar does not in
anyway complicate the matter, nor
will it in the least interfere with
beginning proceedings in the Supreme
court to procure q writ of man
damus to compel Hon. John L.
Crawford, secretary of state, to
discharge a duty which Governor
Fleming has instructed him to do,
which duty he has failed and refused
to perform.
Attorney General Lamar contends
that he can find no authority in the
constitution and laws of the state
making it his duty to institute the
proceedings in the name of the state,
and that, therefore, he cannot do so.
That is an opinion in which the at
torney-general was doubtless actu-
ated by proper and sincere motives,
but the FLoR1D1AN is still of opinion
that the governor has the right to
proceed in the name of the state, as
he will very likely do.
Governor Fleming is the chief
executive of the state. He is in a
large measure responsible for the
acts of the state, and if, in his opinion
the state is an interested party-and
1t seems to the FLoR1D1AN that the
people and the state have a very
material interest in seeing that the
chief executive is not prevented by
the members of his own cabinet,
who hold different opinions from
him, from performing an act that
he believes to be his public and i'm
perative duty-then the governor has
the right, if he so desires, to proceed
in the name of the state to institute
proceedings. The case will prob
ably be docketed in the Supreme
court as State ex rel. Francis P.
Fleming VS.. John L. Crawford, Sec
rotary of state, but what differ
ence does it make whoever the
relator may be? No matter whether
it be Hon. r. II. NJ. Davidson,
the attorney-gener or Hon. Francis
P. Fleming, governor of Florida,
upon whose relation the writ is
prayed for, the proceedings before
the Supreme court will be the same.
1t seems to the FLoRIDIAN that
the people and the state have a very
deep interest in this case, and should
Governor Fleming see fit to proceed
in the name Of the state, it believes
that his action will be endorsed and
approved of by the people.
If the secretary of state is vested
with discretionary and supervisory
powers, then the people should know
it. They have been of opinion all
these years that his duties were
merely ministerial. If he has the
right to build fence around
the executive Office and prevent
the performance of any executive act
that does not harmonic with his per-
sonal opinions, then the people want
to know it at once so they can correct
the evil-for such powers in the
hands of a secretary OF state not in
sympathy or touch with the chief
executive might work injury to many,
would retard and block the official
acts of the chief executive 10 a large
degree, and would be decided evil.
AS matters stand, how are we to
know whether the secretary of state
has such discretionary and supervi-
sorry powers or not?
Clearly we must apply to the
Supreme court to interpret and make
plain the extent of his powers. And
is not the state an interested party
in having the powers and duties Of
the secretary of state defined :?
The FLoRIDIAN thinks it is.
But the matter will soon be
settled and we will then know
whether we will have to 60 to wor k
to remodel our constitution or not.
The difference of opinion between
the governor and encouragement is
to be regretted, but in the institution
of the proceedings in question it will