Year: 1876

that the Governor is not expected to at
tend to the minutiae of providing for
these necessaries. The Auditor has re-
ferred the question to the Attorney.Gen
eral, whose opinion will settle the
matter.


In this connection we recall the fact
that the insurance of the Capitol build
ing at Charleston, was the subject OF
like difference of opinion in 1874 The
Governor and Auditors views antagon-
izing then as they do now.
This resulted in a suit in
the Supreme Court of Appeals
in which the Auditors view was sustain
ed by the unanimous decision of the four
Judges. The provisions of the appropri-
alton acts then and now, were very near
ly similar. With view of shedding oil
the light possible on this subject, we re-
produce some extracts from the opinion
of the Court in that case. 1t is known
as the case of SHIELDS & PRES
TON VS.. BENNETT, Auditor. The Court
IN discussing the law, uses the following
language:


Counsel argue, or at least suggest,
that the provision that the Governor
shall take care that the laws be faith
fully executed, in connection with the
act passed in 1873, that appropriates
money to insure the Capitol building,
authorizes the Governor to procure the
insurance and order ITS payment.


If this provision authorizes the Gov
ernor to insure the Capitol building it re.
quires him to do so. 1t grants no author.
ity other than that which is implied in
the imposition of duty.
The provision which requires that the
Governor shall take care that the laws be
faithfully executed does not generally, if
ever, make it the duty of the Governor
himself to execute the laws.





The Legislature may require the Gov
ernor to perform other duties than those
specified in the constitution not incom-
patible with his dignity and constitutional
functions.


There is no peculiar fitness IN the
Governors insaring the capitol building
or having any special charge Of its ill.,
surance: So that neither the |
character of the duty nor the action OF
the Governor and Auditor, indicates the
understanding that the Governor ought |
to have or in fact did have charge of
the insurance, or in way furnishes rea-
son to presume that the 33 section OF
the act passed in 1873, relative to the
officer who should procure the insurance,
referred to the Governor.


If the case of the capitol building does
not necessarily imply the procurement
or the approval Of the insurance when
an appropriation for insurance |
is made, nevertheless the two functions
are so closely connected a. naturally |
to be united in thought and language. |


The provision in section 81 ap.
propriatins money to pay for gas, ice,
water and other necessaries, and care of
the public grounds and buildings, and
that IN section 80 appropriatlnS money |
to pay for insurance of the capital build
ings are slmler. If under the |
constitutional and statutary provisions |
that have been discussed, or any ofthem,
it be the duty of the Governor to procure
the insurance of the capitol building, it
is likewise his duty to procure the gas,
ice. water and other necessa-ies. If 1t is |
not his duty to purchase these articles
and make his requsition for payment, it |
is not his duty to procure or approve the
insurance of the capital building, or to
make his requisition for the payment OF
charges therefor. We cannot readily |
construe the law to require the FoverAor
10 purchase the necessaries mentioned;
and. unless we do so, we connot construct
TO require him to procure the insurance.
On the other hand, if the law requires the
janitor to purchase the gas, lceand water,
1t requires him to procure the insurance
OF the Capitol building, and to make his
re4uisition Of charges for all. So that
any construction of these laws, other than
that which we adopt, would lead to ab-
surdity.