Court Opinion

ID: 9588021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:28:56.059526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:47.189098
License: Public Domain

Almand, Justice,
dissenting. I cannot agree to the ruling that Sec. 18 of Ga. L. 1959, pp. 34, 40 contains matter different from what is expressed in the title. The term “members of the executive branch of government” in the caption is broad and comprehensive enough to cover any officer, agent, or employee acting for and on behalf of the State as provided for in Sec. 18 of the Act. Members of the legislative department are those provided in the Constitution to make laws; members of the judicial department are those who construe and interpret the Constitution and laws. The members of the executive department are charged with the duty of executing the laws, and this includes not only the Governor and executive departments named in the Constitution but also includes all officers and agents who execute or administer the laws. If an officer or agent is not a member of either the legislative or the judicial department, he must of necessity be classified as a member of the executive department of government. People v. Salsbury, 134 Mich. 537 (96 NW 936). In State v. Womack, 4 Wash. 19 (29 P 939) it was held that a member of a board of education was an executive officer within the meaning of a statute which made it a criminal offense to offer a bribe to any executive officer. See also State v. Gardiner, 88 *95Minn. 130 (92 NW 529); Ex Parte Preston, 72 Tex. Cr. App. 77 (161 SW 115).
Mobley, J., concurs in this dissent.