The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1896-04-14
THREE VETOES BY THE GOVERNOR.
THE MAGISTRATES ACT DIsAP-
PROVED.

THE MAGISTRATES ACT DlSAI
PROVED.
He Claims the Right to Remove fo
Cause-County Treasurers' Stat,
ments to be Published.
Columbia Register.
There were some 200 bills passed b,
the General Assembly at its recen
session, and Governor Evans only We
toed four or five of them. One or tw,
OF them were vetoed while the Legis
lature was in session and three hav,
been vetoed since its adjournment.
The most important measure of tn,
three was that declaring the law o
the State with reference to the ap
pointment, duties and compensation o.
magistrates, as trial justices are called
under the new constitution.
Governor Evans's objections to the
magistrates bill are two-fold. In the
first place the, bill denied him to re.
move magistrates, even for cause, aud
In the second place it prohibited reap.
pointment by the Governor of magis.
trates whose appointment the Senate
refused to confirm.
noxious to the Governor were placed
| In tho bill by the Senate. The House
voted both of them down. The bill
hnally went to free conference, fail
ure to adopt whose report kills any bill
which they have considered. The
free conference committee agreed to
the Senate amendments, and, rather
than kill the bill, the House accepted
the report.
Governor Evans is determined in his
opposition to the curtailment of the
power of the chief executive which
would be accomplished by the passage
OF an act depriving him of the rig ht to
remove magistrates. He says that the
knowledge of his possession of that
power restraints magistrates and
makes them attend strictly to their
duties, for fear of official decapitation.
In conversation with a Register report
err, he mentioned several instances
where magistrates had failed to do
their duty, and claimed that such men
ought not to be allowed to retain their
offices, but the Governor should have
the power to put their official heads
In his waste basket. One OF the casos
mentioned was that of trial Justice
who was so violently opposed TO the
dispensary law that he would neglect
TO send up to the Court of General
Sessions for trial cases made out
The constitution says the Governor
shall have the power to appoint cer-
tain officers, by and With the advice
and consent of the Senate. Senators
contend that this confers substantial
power upon the Senate, which should
be protected. The custom has been
for Governor. if the Senate rejected
any OF his appointments, to wait until
the Senate adjourned and then reap
point the rejected appointee. Senators
maintain that II this practice is to be-
allowed to continus, there is not Bit
oil use In the Senate passing on appoint
ments, for its confirmation or rejection
does not amount to a row of pins
They want the Senate's power with
regard to appointments made sub
stantial reality.
On the other hand, the Governor
claims that the constitution lodges the
appointing power in his hands, and
that passage OF the provision prevent
ing reappolntment of an appointee re-
jected by the Senate really operates to
transfer that power to the Senate.
1t is hardly likely that the Governor
will lose the power he desires to pre-
serve, for the House will not likely con-
sent to the passage Of such bill over
his veto. The argument presented to
the members of the House is very
plausible and has some force. 1t is
practically to this effect: You are en-.
titled to some show in9 the matter of
appointments.
The Governor is usually guided in
the making of appointments by the
desire OF the majority of the members
OF the delegation from The country for
which the appointment is to be mado
1t Is frequently thc case that the Rep
rcsentatlves favor the appointment of
one man, while the Senator wants an
other to land. The Governor takes
the advice OF the members of the
House and appoints their man, whose
appointment the Senator has rejected,
Senatorial courtesy operating TO have
his confeeres vote against any appoint
ment which does not suit him. When
the case is put in this light, the mem
bers OF the House are apt to protect
what they consider their rights, even
If those rights are not specified in the
constitution.
If all the Senators would examine
into the merits of. an appointment,
there would be some value in the pro-
vision requiring appointments to ro-
ceive the sanction of the Senate, but
If each Senator, in return for like con-
sideration, simply votes against an APP
pointment because it is Objectionable
to the Senator from the county for
which 1t Is made, then it appears that
the confirmation provision, coupled
with law preventing reappointmcnt
of 81 rejected appointee, would un-
doubtedly practically take the appoint
ing power out Of the Governors hands
and put it for each county in the hands
of the Senator from that county.
The effect OF the veto of this bill
will be to leave the old law governing
trial justices of force, for the consti-
tuition expressly says that it shall rc-
main OF force until the General Assem-
bly, passes new law regulating the
duties, otc., OF magistrates.
The next in Importance of the bills
vetoed by the Governor was that doing
away with the publication OF the an
nuai reports of County Treasurcrs in
the county papers. The contention in
favor OF the bill was that such publ.
cations cost the taxpayers large sums
of money, for which there was no com
mensurate return. The Governor
| claims that there is value in the pub
| licatiOn OF the reports of the County
| Treasurers, for the taxpayers can fine
ont from them what has been done
with their money and acts as a check
| on the treasurers, preventing then
from making overpayments or pay
ments to themselves in the name o
other partie3.
The third bill vetoed was one pro
1 IL Il H. H.. n = L L