The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1902-04-22

tory is hereby constituted and ap-
pointed. etc. From the language Il
will be seen that the legislature itself
constituted the committee and prcNi-
ously appointed or ratified the selection
to be made by the governor Taking
the defendants view OF the law. ID can
only be said that the legislature cum
iefred on the governor the poyer -
name the personnel Of a legislative
committee. and / find no decisions
which hold that the governor OF a state
or territory has the right to remove
or change the persons who constitute
a legislative committee, in the abb
sence of express statutory authori-y so
to do. To hold otherwise woul | be
TO permit the executive branch @, the
territory to usurp the functins ana
powers expressly conferred upon the
Legislative department. These men arc
not merely employees under the execu-
tive department but are either officers
OF the territory or constitute a legis-
lative committee. II the latter, then
the governors powers were exhausted
and his entire duty performed when he
appointed and commissioned the frs.
committee, but il he made a mist axe
he could not change it. The act au-
thorizing the selection of the comm T.
tee by the governor was regularly pass
ed by the legislature and received his
approval. and the language authori1-
ed him TO appoint a committee, and
then further IN the act BY express lar
guagc, constituted and appointed tic
same persons as a committee for lie
purposes named, and it did not, even
by implication, authorize him to change
them. The act was approved on
March Sth 1907. and section 4 makes
it the duty of the govern to appoint
the committee within ninety days which
was done, the commissions OF the first
committee being dated May 9Th. 100,
The statutes authorized the perfsr-
nance OF a specific act. and having
made the appointments pursuant 20 the
power conferred, the governor had nc
further discretion in the matter. eere.
cially after the ninety days had elaps
ed, unless it can be said that they are
territorial officers and subpect ~ re-
moval at the will OF the appointing
power. which contention we will notice
later Under some OF the authorities
the commissioners in question would
not be public officers The case OF
the Territory VS.. Scott (Dak.) 20 n. w
Rep. AIS. is squarely in point.
Many authorities may be decided on
both sides OF this particular quest;o
Therefore ! shall review them re fur
ther But the difference in the author
tiles IS more imagined than real. The
courts do not differ so widely as 10
what is necessary to constitute 4 pub.
lie officer. The apparent differenc. nc
ours when the different courts deter
mine as to whether the statutes crcat.
ing the respective positions are in
conflict with the provisions OF the or
ganic law OF the state, and many II
the courts, in commenting upon the
matter, say that they are not such offic-
ers as are contemplated by the con
stitution Eren the suoreme court OF
the United States, in commenting up
on the question Z v neither comnic
sioners to issue bonds we're oil -ers
or agents of the county for which they
issued them, said that they were not
such officers as were contemplat II h,
the constitution of the state. L must
therefore be remembered that the
terms officer or office" shoald a.
ways be defined in the light OF the x
garic law aud statutes OF the pafsicu-
lar state; but coaceding the commit
tee were not officers, they coul1 moi
be removed for the reasons state !.
With this conception OF the case al
bar the next question is, would n,
defendants be IN any better oosl.ior
II these commissioners are held to b,
public officers, and in this con1ectio
it may be said think, that they were
in sense, officers; but as to VIII ethc
they were such officers as are coatem
plated in the organic act. for the pur
poses Of this case, it is not nee .ssar,
TO decide, because the act creating th
committee conferred upon the aoyer
nor the right to select whomsoev ,r n
chose and it took firm him no powe
conferred by that act OF congress; am
in express words it appointed the per
scas whom the governor should ap
point, which might be said to be IN
giving OF the consent and approval O
that body
But it Is contcnded by the defend