The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1893-08-12
COL. HONEY GETS LAW.
The Right of the Democrats to Ask the
Opinion Is Denied, but the Court An
swers the Questions Because Of the
Great Public Interest in the Matters
That Are in Dispute.

justify an adjournment, may arise. such
as an epidemic, after the assembly has
convened; riot or great pdb-
lie disturbance; the destruction
of the state house; a palpable
violation OF the constitution by the ex
pulsion Of members, contrary to its pro-
visions, whereby tho character of the
grand committee is changed aud the like.
La the latter case. Notwithstanding the
Tact that each house is TO be the Judge
OF the qualifications Of its own members,
decent self-respect would entitle
the other branch to refuse to be q party
to such illegal constitution Of the grand
committee and to base its action thereon.
The Question In Brief
The question then resolves itself into
this:
Whether the assembly by Joint resolu-
tion may adjourn for more than two
days after both houses are organized
and before counting the votes.
For what both bodies may pass by con-
current vote. ono may first pass and trans
NIT TO the other for concurrence.
We regard the provision of the
constitution requiring the assembly to
count the votes at the May session as
In the highest degree imperative, yet, as
we have said. there may be circumstances
which would justify and would indeed
require the postpoDement Of this duty
for more than two days.
Answered In Anirm alive.
Hence as an abstract proposition we
must answer the question in the afirma-
tive. Whether any given state of affairs
Is one to justify or demand
such adjournment. aud how long ouch
adjournment should be. are legislative
questions necessarily left to the deci.
sion CT the body whose action Is proposed
aud when decided by such body can only
be reviewed by the approval or rebuks OF
the electors
In reply to the second question. we have
to say that whether or not the circum-
stances stated therein constitute such
"disagreement" n is contemplated un-
DER the provisions OF section of article
Z. OF the constitution, is question which
u Is not within either the province or
power OF the judiciary to determine, but
which. under the constitution. rests solely
In the sound judgment and discretion of
the chief executive Of the state.
Would he Simply . Criticism.
Whatever our personal opinion might
be as to the propriety OF certifying dis.
agreement under the circumstances
stated, an expression of such opinion after
the act is done. with no power to correct
1t would amounc only to criticism upon
the action Of coordinate branch OF the
government, which it would be improper
to make. for it must be constantly
hpr IN Ind q hot . l,.,x -
ernment are distributed into three depart
ments-the legislative, the executive and
the judicial, all coordinate and Of equal
authority in their proper sphere, though
mutually interwoAen and in some mea-
sure dependent uDon each other. As said
by the great expounder of constitutional
law, "a separation OF departm ents so
far as practicable and the preservation of
clear lines OF division between them, is
the fundamental idea in the creation of
all our constitutions. and doubtless the
continuance OF regulated liberty
depends on maintaining these boundaries.
Webster's Works, vol. 4. page 122. See
also works o; Rufus Choate by Sam
Gilman Brown, page 364.
Powers OF the Governor.
The powers vested In the executive de-
partment are TO lie exercised by the
governor under his oath OF Office, and
under the expressed cons titutional in
junction that he shall take care
that the laws be faithfully
executed" and he is responsible to the
people alone for the manner in which he
discharges the duties of his high Office.
IL he violates the constitution or the laws
4 Ia a.. IN IA. 4
impeached and removed from Office and
any other person. Ses Art. IL of the
constitution.
Cannot he Called to Account.
But for the exercise of his powers and
prerogative as governor, neither the
legislative nor the judicial department
has any power to call him to account,
nor can they nor either Of them review
his action In connection Herewith.
In short. It cannot be questioned the
governor Is supreme and Independent in
the executive department as il the legis-
lature and the court In the judicia
department. OF the government. People
VS.. Mahoney, 13 Mich. q Middaugh), 4Sl;
Southerland VS.. the governor, 20 Mich.
800; Hover. Governor, vs.. the state. I27
Iud. 5Sse0o. Moreover. this In a case In
which the executive department. of the
state government has the power aud duty
TO finally pass upon question Of con-
stitutiouaI construction. IL belongs to
that class or cases as were stated by
Judge Cooley Ia his excellent work
on Constitutional Limitations who says,
Where by the constitution a particular
question is plainly addressed to the dis
cretion or judgment Of some one depart
ment or officer, so that the interference of
Any department or olicer With Q view 10