Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-04-23
ADVISORY OPINIONS OF THE
JUSTICES

JUSTICES
Governor Brewster's request duly |
made Of the Supreme Court for adj
vice respecting his rights and duties
pertaining to the Cummings case
before the Governor and Council has
been granted. The result is in &C
cord with the report circulated
several days ago that five of the
justices sustain the action Of the
Governor in the premises, two dis
senting. 1t now appears that one
justice decided the occasion did not
warrant the Interpretation of
solemn" and did not give an
opinion.
We hope these opinions will be
read very carefully. especially con-
sidering the responsibility which
the majority decision lays upon the
intelligence of the voters. These
I'VE Justices conclude that the
wording which the Legislature pre-
scribed for the question submitted
to the people, is not to be consider
ed, but the wording Of the amend
rnent itself. and which also was
printed upon the ballot and is not
ambiguous and should have been
understood by the voters, notwith-
standing what the Legislature may
have understood, or what the voters
may have inferred from the way 1t
formulated the question.
This question asked Of the voters,
was as formulated by the Legis-
lature-"A mere formula" five
justices say: "Shall the Constitu-
ton be amended as proposed by a
resolution of the Legislature grant
ing to the Governor. BY THE CON-
SENT AND ADVICE OF THE
COUNCIL, the power to remove
sheriffs, who do not faithfully and
efficiently perform the duties i'm
posed upon them by law and to
appoint another sheriff in his place
for the remainder of the term
for which such removed sheriff was
elected.
The five justices appear to hold
that the voters should have been
sufficiently informed to know that
this was a mere formula, that for
purposes of trying the sheriff 1.-THE
consent and advice" were not to be
considered in the light that had
come to be usage, because the word
ing of the resolve itself did not so
contain the words consent and ad-
vice"
Considering the profound intelli-
gence the majority decision ascribes
10 the voters, to their knowledge of
legal definitions, ct cetera, es-
sential to the knowledge imputed to
them, the people may conclude it not
improper for them to reason the
matter out for themselves; this, not
withstanding they should be aware
that the knowledge of law possessed
by layman cannot in the nature of
things, be equal to that of minds
trained in the law and informed re-
speeding It's appllcation.
In this instance they have the as
sistance of the dissenting justices,
who conclude that the fact that an
opinion of the Court has been asked
shows the resolve or amendment to
Be ambiguous and needing an in
depreciation of the intent. These
dissenting justices conclude, con-
trary to the majority, that the Gov
srnor and Council do not cease in
this judicial capacity to act as the
executive department according to
custom. They do not agree that the
amendment sets those UP in another
capacity az a quasi judicial tribunal
in which the Governor votes as one.
The public. with these conflicting
conclusions, may be inclined to form
its own conclusions respecting GER
tain very important matters. They
should do this without regard to
personal consideration, thinking not
at the moment of any particular Of
fetal, sheriff or Governor, but of
certain fundamental principles in
voIved, q certain trend of opinion
away from that to which they have
been accustomed.
They may find that. under this
decision Of the majority, of the
justices, 1t is possible for Cover
nor with any council that happens
to be tied in opinion, to bring be-
fore this quasi judicial" court
any sheriff elected by the voters,
then to select prosecutors. then to
sit as judge and. In event of tie
in the council, to act as a juror de-
termining the verdict, and then as a
minister Of Justice, impose the
penalty.
Another conclusion the public may
arrive at can be, we assume, that
this being In excess Of the usual
powers entrusted to executive Of
hcers 1t might be wise to change the
Constitution once more and then to
desist from making changes unless
\ there may be q way devised for OBJ
tanning in advance the interpreta-
ton Of the Court respecting the
real meaning Of any proposed
amendment.
Justice Dunn In declining to an
aver the question holds. in effect,
that whether the sheriff can be law
FULLY removed by the Governor I'M
der the circumstances of the Cum