The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-01-04

functions; that under the constitution the
office OF Governor could become again
| removal of Foster M. Voorhees,. and-as
neither of those contingencies has oc-
Cured. there was no vacancy IN the once
of Governor by which David o.. Watkins
could succeed TO that Office.
1t is well settled both in England and IN
this country that title to an office cannot
other collateral proceeding. Where the
official is in possession of the office. and is
executing its powers under color OF Title,
he will be regarded at least as a de facto
acts will be eficacious.
That rule. so absolutely essential to the
stability of government and the protection
of the governed, should be recognized in
its full force.
The case sub JUDGE is peculiar and
Ts1 situation is this: If Foster M.
Vo.> hees as President of the Senate was
transferred by force of the constitutional
provision, to the office of Governor, there
by vacating his office as Senator. he is
ter M. Voorhees,. president OF the. Senate,
still Governor of New Jersey in full pos
session of the powers of the office, and
under obligations to perform its duties,
and if he is Governor de jure in possession
of the office. David o. Watkins cannot at
the same time be Governor de facto, and
the warrant signed by him was without
the slightest legal value.
All hat appears in the case before us is.
that Governor Griggs resigned; that Eos
lOOh lit Qdlll L oldLCd lllol tit SUI
sequently resigned his office as Senator;
that David o. Watkins was the Speaker
of the Assembly, and that he took the
oath set forth. No act appears or his part
to show that he is de facto except the
oath and the signing of the death war
rant. If Foster M. Voorhees, was Cow
ernor and his resignation of the senator
ship was not a vacation of his office as
Governor, he must still be Governor;
nothing appearing before us except his
resignation as Senator to show that he is
NOT still acting and claiming. to art as
Governor.
We are constrained, therefore, to resort
to an interpretation of the provisions OF
our State Constitution touching this sub
ject to determine whether David o. Wat
has the right either de jure or de
faeto to do the act which has given rise
TO this litigation.
The opinion then quotes the paragraph
of the constitution providing for the filling
of a vacancy in the office of Governor
and -continues:-In constituting this clause
of the constitution it must be borne in
mind that it was carefully drawn by
learned jurists who knew how to express
with exactneSS and precision the purpose
they had in view.
The provision is that in case of the res
ignation of the Governor, the powers, du-
ties and emoluments of the office shall de-
volve upon the President of the Senate
and not that the President of the Senate
shall thereby become Governor and hold
the title and the office until another Gov
ernor is elected.
If the trainers of the fundamental law
had Intended to transfer the president of
the Senate to the executive chair and
thereby to vacate his office as Senator,
it is reasonable to believe that they
would nave said so in no uncertain Ian
guage. The language used is not am
biguous; it declares that the powers. du-
ties and emoiuments of the office shall de-
volye on the president of the Senate; it
does not confer upon him the title of the
Office.
The President OF the Senate exercises
the powers of the Governor; the Presi-
dent of the Senate performs the duties
of, the Governors; the President of the
Senate receives the emoluments of that
office.
He is still President of the Senate with
the added duties required of the Chief
Executive of the State imposed on him.
There is no language in the Constitu-
ton from which it can be reasonably in
ferred thai his Office of President of the
Senate was to be vacated. He retains his
office of Senator and as President of the
Senate. and not as Governor he exercises
the added powers and performs the super
imposed duties.
In my judgment the trainers of the Com
stitution meant simply what they said,
f Pres d - case sc t the s senata as fe sneh sb,o ma
have he powers and perform the duties
of the office. Foster M. VOORHEES, did not
become Governor upon the ~resignatlon 81
be a. Senator and President of the Sen
ate. He could not resign the office of Gov
ernor, WHICH he never held: Wher ne re-
he ceased to be President of the Senate,
and could no longer exercise the func-
tions. pertaining to the executive depart
menf. therefore upon his resignation as
Senator the powers, duties and emolu-
ments of the Office devolved upon David
Q. Watkins. He is de jure Speaker OF
exercises the executive power. He Is not
Governor, neither de jure nor de facto
in the Constitutional sense OF that term.
The act of 1898 cannot in any respect at
feet this controversy.