Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1891-03-12
GOV. HILLS OPINION.

The Executive of the state of New York
Files an Opinion in which He States His
Reasons for Assuming to be the Judge
of the Qualifications of the Executive of
a Sister State.
ALBANY, y. Y. March Elm d;shOn-
bring Gov. Bulkeley's requisition for ex-
tradition papers of the Danbury horse
thief. Colbert. Gov. Hill files an opinion,
in which he says:
ALBANY, y. Y, March s. 1891.
decline to recognize person as governor
who was neither elected by the people, nor
has any legal title to the office and who is
not recognized as governor by the highest
legislative body of his own state. When the
senate of Connecticut repudiates Mr. Bulke-
ley; declines to permit his messages to have
access to the senate chamber; refuses to re-
ceive his communications, which he at
tempts to fOfst upon it, and utterly ignores
bis nominations, and in every possible way
rejects his pretensions, cannot be expected,
under such circumstances, to afford him
recognition in this state which he is unable
to secure in his own state.
Judge Morris received an actual majority
of the votes cast for governor, and has been
declared duly elected by the senate. He is
governor of the state de jure, having "duly
qualified" by taking and filing the required
oath of office, which is the only act to be
performed by him as condition precedent
office. He is acting as governor so far as he
is permitted to do Mr.. Buckley is a
mere usurper, and such has no claim to
be considered governor de facto. The
judicial decisions upon the subject are all to
this effect. In People VS.. AlbertSOn, How,
pr. 500. it was held that a claim under title
of appointment to office which by law is
elective cannot constitute the claimant an Of
ficer de factO; and in Convers' Case, Abb, pr.
573 People VS.. Peabody s Abb, pr. 22S, and the
mayor of New York VS.. Flagg. Abb, 226, it
was held that where a public officer had
been duly elected, had been duly APP
pointed, and had done all in his power to-
wards assuming control of the Office, he was
to be deemed in law to be rightfully in pos
session of such Office and entitled to recOg-
milton such. So it was held by the gem
eral term in the fourth department in the case
of Cronin Va. Gundy, 1000, 524, that there can
not be both an officer de jure and another
dc facto performing the duties of the office
at the same time, citing BOardman VS.. Halli-
day, 10 Paige, 223; People VS.. Peabody, and
Morgan vs.. Quackenbush, 222, Barbe, 722.
This case was affirmed in the court of APP
peaIs in 9S New York, 271.
From a careful examination of the legal
authorities upon the question and from the
opinions of able counsel whom have con-
suited, am advised and satisfied that it is
my duty to decline all acquisitions coming
from Mr. BuIkeiey under the present situa-
tiOn of affairs in Connecticut.
When requistion papers are presented to
the executive he must judge of their author
ity, validity and suffcency.
would gladly honor requstiOn for the
surrender of Il fugitive from Justice coming
from the lawful executive authority of Con-
necticut If for any reason the lawful eXccu-
tive authority of that state is at present pow
erlesS to exercise its proper functions, it IL a
public misfortune which would, however,
afford no justification to me should give Of
fetal recognition to one who unlawfully
81 he ripnt tn exercise such authority.