The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-07-28
MAKES HISTORY IN
The SCIENCE Of LAW

y proper couny attorney may inst
tlitc ana maintain sue al haction
the name OF the state.
Courts May Exercise Control.
Z, That courts Of competent ID
issilction may control purely mini
terlaiYacts of the secretary of stat
and other state officers other tina
the governor, has been settled i
the great weight OF current state r,
th0rlN, 26lCyc. 2sl, 245, The a,
indications oil this court accord wit
That Erulc. Norris et al. VS.. Cros
100 fOkla.) Pac. 1000; ThreadgilI
al. VS., Cross, decided by this coul
but net yet officially reported.
The question arises, may sue
courts control the action Of the 20
ernors even In ministerial act,
lnsGPeople ex rel. Sutherland VI
Governor, 29 Mich. $40, Is Am. Re,
Ss, speaking through the late Chic
Justice Cooley, the court said
But when duties are imposed
upon the governor, whatever be
shelr grade, Importance or nature,
we doubt the right Of the courts
TO Say that this or that duty
might properly have boen I'm
posed upon a secretary Of state,
or "a sheriff Of u county or other
ipferior ofli.er, and that inasmuch
az In case II had been SO imposed,
there would have been judicial
remedy for neglect to perform
1t, therefore there must be tho
like remedy when the governor
himself is guilty OF similar neg
lect The apportionment OF
power. authority and duty to the
governor, is either made by the
people in the constitution, or by
theRlegislaturc In making laws un-
der IT; and the courts, when the
apportionment has been made,
would be presumptuous II they
should assume to declare that
particular duty assigned to the
governor is not essentially execu-
tive, but Is OF such inferior grade
aud Importance as properly TO
pertain to some inferior office,
and consequently, for the pur-
pose of their jurisdiction, the courts
may treat Il precisely as il an
inferior officer had been required
TO ,pcrform it. TO do this would
boDhot only to question the wis
dom OF the constitution or the
laWs but also to assert right TO
make the governor the passive
instrument OF the judiciary in ex-
ecuting It's mandates within the
sphere of his own duties. Were
the courts to 20 so far, they
would break away from those
checks and balances OF govern
ment. which we're meant to be
checks OF cooperation; and not of
untagonism or mastery, and
would concentrate in their own
hands something at least of the
power which the people, either
directly or by the action of their
representatives, decided to in
trust to the other departments
OF the government.
The current weight OF state author
ity appears to clearly sustain the rul
tbat state courts may not control tn
governor OF state even in the es
ercise of a ministerial act. IIawkin
vs.. the Governor, | Ark. $40; SO An
Doc. GAG; Taylor VS.. the Governor
Ark. 81; State ex rel. Bisbee VI
Drew.e17 Fla. G7; state ex rel LoS
VS.. Towns, s Ga. $50; People ex re
billings VS.. blssell, 10 Ill. 229, g
Am. Dec. 591; People ex rel. Harles
VS.. Hatch, S3 Ill. 8; People ex re
Hairless VS.. Yates, 40 III. 126; Peopl
OK rel Stickney VS.. Palmer. "a III. Al
reoplo OK rel Bacon VS.. Gallon, 10
III. 472: Hoycy VS.. State, l27 Ind. 5SS
IL i. r. A. 763, % Am. st hep. 6GS
state vs.. Kirkwood, IL La. iC2; Stat
ex rel Oliver VS.. Warmoth, " LII
Ann. /, Am. Rep. III; State OK re
Mississippi Valley nav. Co. VS.. Wal
moth, "a La. Ann. aoI, lS Am. Rel
12G; State OK rel. Hope VS.. Board Q
Liquidation, AZ La. Ann. 6i7, 81
7OG, s SO. 577; State OK rel McIiner
KS. Nichols, 42 La Ann. 200; In r
bennett, SO Mo SOS. 81 Am. Dec. COZ
Rice VS. Austin. 80 Mimi. 1903. Is An
Rep. $50, Gil. "A; Vicksburg and n
X. Co. VS.. Lowry, 81 Miss. 102, ,1s An
Rep. az: state OK rel. Robb. VS.. stone
100 Mo. f2S, 23 l.. r. A. 1874, Al An
ST. Rep. 705; State. GledhiIl, Pros'
,cntor VS.. the Governor, 20 n. J.
1881: People ex rel Brodcrick VS.. Me