Milford chronicle., 1952-04-11
High Court Rules On
Plans For Vote Probe
Continued from first page)


that THE first question PROFOUND
ed is not one touching the con-
struction of any provision in the
Constitution of this state or of the
United States, or the constitution
ality of any law enacted by the
Legislature Of this state, and hence
is not one contemplated by the sta
tute.
I'VE find no provision in the Con-
stitutiOn of this state which bears
upon the subject of disqualification
of the attorney general arising
from personal interest or bias in
a particular case, or any provis-
ions the construction or interpre-
tatiOn of which would supply any
answer to this question.
Moreover, the question of dis
qualification is one primarily of
fact, to be judicially determined by
a court in a proper proceeding; it
cannot be determined by the Gov
ernOr eX parte. Hence, an answer
TO the question is not required to
. enable the Governor to discharge
the duties of his office.
I'VE are of the opinion that the
first question is not one within the
purview of the provisions of Para
graph 374 of the Revised Code of
1885, and must respectfully request
to be excused from making answer
thereto"
Answering the second question,
regarding the right Of the Cover
nor to appoint a special prosecutor
if the attorney general is disquali-
= fed, the justices said:
! "Since the question of the alleg-
l. ed disqualification of the attorney
,, general has not been determined,
q the question is a hypothetical one.
= Members of the judiciary in other
. states requiring advisory opinions
to the other departments of the gov
ernment have consistently adhered
; to the rule that answers to hypO-
y thetical or theoretical questions
. may not properly be required or
: given. The question prOpOunded
" should have a bearing upon a pres
- ent constitutional duty awaiting
" performance by the executive.
Our statute requires such Opin-
. ions whenever the Governor shall
require it for public information,
or to enable him to discharge the
"a duties of his Office with fidelity.
= 1t is our opinion that the Cover
/, nOr's second question is not one
, contemplated by the statute. since
n unless and until the alleged dis
" qualification of the attorney gen
% eral shall be made to appear, no
n question of public concern is pre-
!. sented, nor is the discharge of any
1t official duty by the Governor re-
m Quired.
J. I'VE are of the opinion that the
II second question of the Governor
r does not fall within the purview OF
,e the provisions of Paragraph 374
r and must respectfully request tC
lie be excused from making answer
thereto"
hi AS to the third question, in
I'd which a constitutional matter was
II involved, the justices answered
Of mo"
y, The court pointed out that "Ar-
- ticle V, Section Z, (Of the Della.
lf ware Constitution cerates and de-
st fines certain Offenses relating tC
Ot the giving or receiving of money
se or other valuable thing or induce
ar ment for giving or Withholding {
ty vote at any general, special Of
y municipal election in the state, OIL
n at any primary election convention
in or meeting held for the purpose o
.e, nominating any candidate or can
d. didates to be voted for at any sucl
On general, special or municipal elec
a ton, as we'll as certain other of
ca fenses against the purity of tn
n ballot"
in The justices then cited Section
n of the same article which sets fOrtl
f. a particular manner of making tn
complaint and holding the trial i
IL these cases. The prosecution is L
al be on information filed by the al
EN- tOrney general and the case is [
p be heard, tried and determined b
ns the court without the interVentiO
he of either a grand jury or a peti