The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-08-13
CL0UGH WAS RIGHT
SUPREME COURT SUSTAENS HIS APP
POINTNENT OF TRUMAN
GRIFFIN
ON THE BOARD OF PHARMACY
LEGEsLATUEE HAD NO POWER TO
DELEGATE THE EXECUTIVES
APPGINTIVE POWER.
ON THE BOARD OF PHARMACY
CONSTITUTION is IN THE WAY.
Decision Affects the State Dental
Examiners and Some Other OF
the State Boards.


the State Pharmaceutical association.
The supreme court stands by his eX-
cenercy and says that when he chal-
lenged the validity of a law which
delegated his appointtve power. III u
measure at least, to an organiza ton
which was in no sense created by or
responsible to the people, he did just
right
Accordingly. it declares that portion
of the law creating the state board Of
pharmacy which limits the governors
arp0intive power void, and Truman
Griffin, the young Minneapolis drug
gist, who was appointed to succeed
the veteran secretary, H G.. Webster,
of the same city. is entitled to hold
the place.
The case has been a hotly contested
one. The pharmacists association,
which did not recommend Griffin for
appointment in the list of five which
they were permitted under the law,
first fought Grifin's confirmation in
the senate. The senate referred the
matter to the judiciary committee,
which split almost evenly on the Ques-
ton Of the legality of the appoint
ment and finally compromised by
recommending against the confilma-
ton. The senate, however, overruled so
as to let the governor and his opponents
test the matter in the courts without
adding political feeling to the fight.
It was understood that the COVER
nor's position was concurred in by
the attorney general, but when the
pharmaceutical association applied for
a writ of quo warranto, he was COM
PEELED to appear in the case as a NOM
inal relator.
The order of the court filed yester-
day is as follows:
State of Minnesota ex rel. H w Childs at
torney general, and the Minnesota State
Pharmaceutical Association, REALTORS, VS..
Truman Griffin, respondent
g. s. 1884 section 1926 in so far as 1t re-
qulres the governor to appoint members Of
the state board of pharmacy from among a
certain number Of pharmacists elected by
the state pharmaceutical association, is OPP
posed to the provisions, of the constitution
art v, section 4, and is unconstitutional and
void. Collins J:
Accompanying it is the following memo
randum:
The question here Is whether G. s,
1894, Sec. 1926, is an unwarrantable
interference with the constitutional
prerogative of the chief executive in
the exercise of the power granted to
him in the matter of appointments
to Office. The constitution, article 5,
section 4, provides that the governor
shall have power by and with the adj
vice and consent of the senate to ap-
point state librarian and notaries
public and such other officers as may
be provided by law" Section 1926,
supra, provides for the appointment
Of a state board Of pharmacy, and con-
fers upon the state pharmaceutical
association the power Of electing fif-
teen reputable and practicing phar-
mactsts from which number the gov
ernor shall appoint five; these five,
holding office for different terms from
one to five years, and to constitute
the first state board. Annually there
after the state association Is to elect
five pharmacists from which number
the governor is to select and appoint
one to fill the vacancies annually oc-
curing. In case Of other vacancies
the appointments to fill the same must
be from among those last elected and
those names were last submitted to
the governor. The power conferred
upon the governor by the constitution
al provision is broad and unrestricted
When officers provided by law are to
be appointed by him, the exercise of
his judgment and his freedom of selec-
ton are not qualified or limited ex-
cept at this judgment and selection
may not meet the approval of the
state senate. The governors appoin-
tees may not be confirmed. This
grant of power IS not, in terms, limit
ed in section 4, and there are no other
provisions of the fundamental law
which can be cited in support of the
legislative right to confer upon the
state pharmaceutical association the
power to dictate and control appoint
ments which the governor is author
lied to make. If this were so the
Legislature could delegate the power
Of selection to a natural person or to
q ward caucus and compel the chief
executive to surrender his prerogative
to such person or caucus. If he may
be compelled to select one of five per-
sons named by natural or artificial
person he can equally as we'll be
obliged to choose as between two.
a. statute which thus interferes with
the freedom Of selection contemplated
by the constitutional provision must
be in conflict with it's terms and with
its spirit and intent. Under the law
in question, the governor is deprived
Of an exercise Of his choice or discre-
ton. He can simply choose as between
number of persons who are deter
mined and selected by the members
Of corporation. The duty to appoint
was personally required of the gov
ernor by the people when adopting the
fundamental law. He can not delegate
the power of appointment; he cannot
surrender his authority to another and
he cannot relinquish or renounce the
right. So that any legislature which
relieves the governor from the obliga-