*1 opinion (1973) Eagen, J., joined (concurring Pomeroy). Chief Justice Jones and Mr. Justice Mr. again register
Regretfully, I must
dissent.
dissenting
join
JONES,
J.,
J.,
EAGEN,
in this
C.
opinion.
Richard C. et
v. SUTHERLAND,
Robert E. Defendant. Plaintiffs, al., Richard C. FRAME et v. ELISH,
Peter Defendant. Plaintiffs, al., FRAME Richard C. et v. HATCH, Shirley
Grace Defendant. Plaintiffs, al., Richard C. FRAME et Egidio CERELLI, Defendant.
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued April 1974.
Decided Oct. 1974.
Rehearing Denied Nov. *2 Harrisburg, Friedman, Woodside, Edward E. William petitioners. for Dept, Justice, Lawrence J. Atty. Gen., Packel,
Israel re- Harrisburg, Governor, Beaser, to the Counsel spondents. O’BRIEN, EAGEN, ROB- JONES, J.,
Before C. NIX, ERTS, POMEROY, JJ. AND OPINION ROBERTS, Justice. validity of challenges presented
We are appointments made the Governor certain ap- that, because hold consent of the Senate. We “during the recess of Sen- pointments were made ate,” are invalid. Pennsylvania p. December
At 2:30 onm. adjourn its 1973 session. Senate voted *3 purported to 24-22, adopted by resolution, vote of ment a not con did sine The resolution the die.1 Senate House for, of template, provide the consent receive conduct met and Representatives. fact, In the House January morning of ed on December 31 and business fifty-seventh day, one hundred noon that 1974. At fifty- hundred Assembly expired one and the General eighth begin.2 to was mandated Senate, the adjournment of the
Several hours after 8(b) of Governor, pursuant IV, section to article in- appointments, approximately Constitution, made the Civil cluding a member Hatch as defendаnts Grace member aas Commission, E. Service Robert Sutherland aas Commission, Elish Pennsylvania Peter of the Game Egidio Cerelli Marketing Board, of the Milk and member Turnpike Commission. Pennsylvania as a member of hearing. meeting or assigning day 1. a for a further “[W]ithout Hence, adjournment.” a final 1968). (rev. Dictionary 1556 4th ed. Black’s Law II, § 4: Pa.Const. art. o’clock Assembly . shall meet at twelve “The General Tuesday January year.” each noon on the first January, 1974, plaintiffs, members of three quo Senate, warranto these actions instituted rights de- the named to Commonwealth test Court ap- had been fendants to hold the offices petitioned this pointed on 31. Plaintiffs also December matter; we jurisdiction plenary Court to assume ar- February 6, 1974, granted petition and heard their on gument April 22,1974 on depends on con- controversy for its resolution This Constitution, 8 of our struction of article provides: pertinent part which in appoint Attorney “(a) The an Gen- shall eral, Superintendent and such Instruction of Public ap- law other officers as he shall be authorized General, the point. Attorney appointment other Superintendent such Instruction Public subject to specified by may be law, as shall officers be the members elected the consent of two-thirds Senate.
“(b) may Except or hereafter otherwise as now providеd appellate other as Constitution during Senate, va- judges, may, fill he the recess of appoints he happening in offices to which cancies granting expiring at the end of its session commissions during vacancy happens the session If . provided in except otherwise this Con- fi- stitution, its he shall to the before nominate Senate, vacancy.” proper person fill nal adjournment, *4 8(a) is sub- procedure The established appointments consent mission of to the Senate 8(b) an ex- creates Section two-thirds its members. appoint- ception exempting general rule, certain 31, 1970, July Appellate Act of Act of 3. See Court Jurisdiсtion 205, (Supp.1974). § § 211.205 P.L. art. P.S. 1, 1974, assigned for the on 4. This case was to the writer October opinion majori- preparing expressing a purpose the views of an ty of this Court. requirement ments from the of senatorial confirmation. Governor, provided, may The it is fill in offices vacancies appoints submitting appoint he to which by granting temporary5 to the ments Senate commis “during sions the recess of the If is the Senate Senate.” gen made, not recess when the requirement applicable. eral of senatorial confirmation requirement suspended only during That “the recess ap Thus, validity of an unconfirmed Senate.” pointment depends powеr to on whether the Governor’s triggered temporary re issue “the commissions was cess of Senate.” phrase context
The “recess of the Senate” interruption following a dai an break does include or ly meeting. choice did, have a If it the Governor would appointment procedure could Obvious he utilize. sittings, ly, there 24-hour unless undertook peri least be a of the Senate” for at some would “recess ap every day year of time when unconfirmed od pointments be made. could appointment relationship indicates, permanent appointment power how-
and the option. It is ever, that the is not to have preferred appointments made be clear that the draftsmen tra- by gubernatorial consent for nomination-senatorial However, public purposes.6 ditional checks-and-balances e., expiring Senate’s] I. “commission at the end [the 1937) Library (Modern ed. 6. See The No. at 494-95 Federalist (A. Hamilton): require co-operation of the Sen- purpose “To what then answer, would necessity concurrence ate? I of their operation. powerful, though, general, It would have a silent upon spirit in the Presi- of favoritism be an excellent check dent, appointment greatly prevent tend would connection, family prejudice, from from State unfit characters attachment, popularity. personal a view from stability this, source addition to would an efficacious it in the administration. *5 necessity might require position a filled after the be Sen- constitutionally ate had its session, when terminated the preferred procedure provide be could not followed. To appointment process an preferred for occasions when procedure inadequate,7 permits is thus Constitution temporary “during issue commissions Governor to exception designed for recess of the Senate.” was only preferred procedure use when not be em- cоuld ployed. It of must be follows “recess the Senate” periods to when unable limited those time appointments. to to consent
Inability a not result from break be- to consent does day’s re- it one does tween session and next. Neither readily comprehended, had him- “It will be that a man who offices, disposition governed much the sole be self more bound to submit the would interests, private than he was his and when inclinations propriety to the discussion' of his choice body, independent and that and of a and determination different possibility of body legislature. The an entire branch proposing. The rejection danger strong a would be motive сare and, reputation, elective case an to his own existence, spirit betraying magistrate, political a from to his favoritism, ob- pursuit popularity, unbecoming or an weight great opinion body have servation of in would a whose operate as forming public, fail to could not ashamed He be both barrier to the one and to the other. and afraid would forward, or distinguished bring for the most stations, merit than had no other lucrative candidates who be- particularly coming to which he the same State personally allied way longed, being or of in some other pliancy to him, necessary insignificance and possessing or of pleasure.” obsequious of his them instruments render Hamilton): (A. No. See id. at 439 appointment power under U.S.Const. recess President’s “[The perma- II, 2, supplement to nothing § art. cl. 3 than [his more is] 2], § cl. appointment power art. nent U.S.Const. under appointment, establishing auxiliary purpose of an method or- inadequate. The general method was cases to which the Sen- dinary power appointment the President is confined to during session jointly, ate be exercised can therefore oblige this Senate; improper to of body it have been but as would officers, appointment of continually be for the recess, might happen it might in their to fill without аnd as vacancies delay, the succeed- necessary ing public for the service President, singly, evidently authorize the intended to clause Senate, ‘during recess of the to make by their expire end of at the granting' which shall commissions ” emphasis (original removed) session.’ next Friday-to-Monday interruption. Indeed, from a we suit *6 say any interruption during are unable ap- to consent to of the Senate renders Senate unable pointments. Therefore, we that “recess of conclude only adjournment at Senate” refers to the final sine die the end of the session. dealing
This our cases conclusion is consistent with appointments. Stroup Kapleau, with v. Pa. recess 455 majority 171, (1973), to the 313 referred A.2d 237 trigger adjournment which “final of the as the Senate” temporary appointment power. In Crea- activates 493, 484, Judges, mer Pleas Pa. v. Twelve Common 443 Support (1971) (Opinion in of the Per 281 A.2d 61 57, comparing Order), Justices, three Curiam V, “recess 13, section concluded that 8 and article adjournment of the Senate” and “sine die Senate” editorially only differed not in substance and inter- preted adjournment. Ritenour final both to mean (1971), Peirce, 1, 10, rec- A.2d also Pa. ognized adjournment final as the circumstance suspended requirement. the senatorial-confirmation
Therefore, finally adjourned if thе Senate had on the afternoon December “recess the Sen- ate” existed which activated the Governor’s is- sue commissions and the of de- fendants are valid. If finally the Senate had not ad- journed, requirement of senatorial confirmation was suspended by ap- a “recess of the Senate” and the pointments Thus, question invalid. narrow decision adjournment is whether the unilateral Senate’s on adjournment. December 31 was a final attempt adjourn
We hold that the Senate’s sine die failed because of the absence consent Representatives. House of holding Our on rests a con prohibits clusion that the Constitution eithеr house adjourning sine die without the consent of the other. clearly predicated
The entire constitutional scheme adjournment may unilat- assumption not be a on the part eral act on the of one of houses General Assembly. provides: III, Article section 9
“Every order, vote, which concur- resolution or except necessary, on may rence of both Houses be presented question adjournment, shall ” . . . . IV, section 12 states: Article occasions, extraordinary may, on Governor] “[The disagree- Assembly, convene the case General respect time to the Houses, ment between two he shall adjournment, them to time as such proper think . . .” *7 article adjournment from The resolutions exclusion of by the adjournment III, provision for section 9 and the super- utterly in section 12 would be article Governor contemplate ad- that if the did fluous Constitution Assembly required journment of the General of a house of the other house. consent diffi- requirement is not policy for The this reason powerless enact house is Because each cult discern. insuring in legislation alone,8 strong interest each has a by house. the other passed by it are considered that bills possibility that greatest threat to this interest disabling adjourn, itself might house thus other possi- against Protection of bills. consideration by the bility provided each house Constitution adjournment to consent to power to refuse form of a of the other house. requirement demonstrates exception
An to the consent considera- in the interest protection house’s that of each policy. Ar- underlying by the other is its tion of its bills II, ticle 14 states: section other; shall, consent
“Neither House days .” . . three for more than Ill, § 4. 8. Pa.Const. art. interest protection that foresaw
The draftsmen other, if by the having considered its bills house each flexibility expense gained at the unqualified, would Ac- legislative calendar. in the administration exception provides an cоrdingly, the Constitution four than adjournments less requirement consent perception clearly exception days. reflects This minimal days present adjournments four of less than by the in the interest consideration house’s threat to each other of its bills. argue adjournment
Defendants the Senate’s despite the of the consent this case was effective absence Representatives II, section of the House of under article days. duration more than three because its was not vastly disagree. adjournments different We Sine die are II, from the article section short recesses envisioned important respects. First, 14 in two pointed provide above, designed flexi- as out was bility ad- legislative However, die calendar. sine calendar, journments flexibility unrelated to representing legislative do the calen- end excep- purpose dar for the session. Because the requirement tion to the consent be served would not its to sine we application adjournments, die conclude Hence, application. the Constitution does not intend its section 14 does not expand appointments.
make unconfirmed *8 Second, exception at the time the was inserted consent by adjournment into one Constitution, a sine die posed of house a far the interests more drastic threat to II, contemplated by the other than a short recess days pose mini- section 14. of than four a Recesses less danger mal to disa- that one house will so absent itself as However, legislation. ble it of at from consideration exception three-day requirement time the consent and the adjournment Constitution, were inserted in the a sine die represented greatest threat to the interests 186 pend- unenacted
other was because bills house. This so ing expired,9 requiring reintroduc- end of at the a session repassage originating house tion and of the bill in the by house. order obtain consideration other by prevented legislatiоn initiated one absence of house According- being into the other from enacted law. ever sine ly, three-day recess, a a intra-session contrast adjournment by the ultimate threat die one house was having of the other enacted. interest the bills that, It amendment is true since the constitutional 1967, does adjournment a a sine die at the end of II, sec- then-pending not all Article terminate business. Assembly provides tion 4 “The shall that now General Repre- continuing body during the term which its that But there is no evidence sentatives elected.” in- suggests change 4 was that in article inappli- requirement or the tended affect consent cability three-dаy exception.
Nothing re dealing with the prior in our cases suggests that appointment power cess adjournment of triggered a unilateral ad unilateral fact, a conclusion Senate. journment an unwarranted is sufficient would be constitutionally impermissible extension of our decisions. respective cases, In those recesses it is clear Repre House of had been consented to ; Stroup Kapleau, 171, 173, 313 sentatives see 455 Pa. Pleas (1973); Twelve Common A.2d 238 Creamer v. Judges, n. Pa. 281 A.2d *, 500-501 n. (1971) (Opinion Supporting Opposing in in Part and closing adjourn 9. “A has the ses- motion to sine die the effect House, terminating sion and all before the unfinished business expires legislation upon adjournment pending sine die all session, day day with the a motion to while continuity destroy does of a session and unfinished simply place its the succeed- business takes on calendar ing day.” Mason, 445(3), § Legislative P. Manual of Procedure (1970); Pennsylvania, rule XXVIII. see Rules the Senate
187 Peirce, 442 Pa. Order); Ritenour the Per v. Part Curiam (1971). 1, 900, Our discussion 5, 4 n. 272 A.2d 902 n. 243, House Stroup 183, assumed that in at 313 A.2d adjournment necessary final consent was fact the Senate. of the House of summary, that the we hold consent final ad-
Representatives a valid prerequisite for is a not obtained journment it was Since Senate. within instance, this no “recess of Senate” there was Therefore, re- meaning of article section 8. oper- 8(b) appointment power was cess under section not sub- appointments were ative. Because defendants’ required sec- to the mitted Senate for its consent 8(a), tion invalid. their are Judgments declaring the quo entered, are warranto they unlawfully holding which defendants are the offices occupy accordingly and excluded ousted therefrom.10 J., no in the consideration
MANDERINO, part took decision of this case.
NIX, J., dissenting opinion. filed a POMEROY, J., in the result. concurs EAGEN, J., dissents. (dissenting). Justice
NIX,
appeal
had not
issue raised
this
Kapl
Stroup
been
decided
our most recent decision of
eau,
(1973)
455 Pa.
was the effect
The that the view expressed the preference draftsmen of our Constitution by gubernatorial “be made nomina tion-senatorial consent for trаditional checks-and-bal purposes” ances 1 ma Proceeding point, from the this jority tempo exception then reasoned that: “The [the rary appointive designed power] for when was use preferred procedure employed.” the This not be could premise dissenting opinion same formed the of the basis .by La Mr. Chief Justice in Commonwealth ex rel. Brown Snyder 57, 69-72, v. 497 al., et 261 Pa. 104 A. fean (1918). expressed majority however, Court, of the language of unwillingness its to an intention in the find given preference the 1874 that a should be Constitution appointment by Ritenour and consent.2 In advice Peirce, Court, an 442 Pa. A.2d (1971), ra ground applied the decision, аlternative Lafean presently tionale under IV, to article section 8 which is There the stated: consideration. Court' appellant argues, had the “. . the Governor appointment only to make an with Senatorial appointment here agree; not confirmation. We do applicable, challenged if Article was valid even IV person to nominate a . The Governor did adjourn- vacancy fill the Barrett before the Senate’s following nine ment; in the Senate took no action completely I reference 1. am at a loss to understand the Hamilton, expressed majority opinion of Alexander to the views questiоn Papers, being germane to the the Federalist Pennsylvania intent of the of the 1967 Amendment framers people state when of this Constitution and the will approved this Amendment. by majority rejection Senate held Lafean from prevent by the Governor a nomination appointing the Governor did his tem- rejected office under nominee to the same appointive power. porary prior ensuing adjournment; during months its appoint- recess of Senate the made the Governor doing required ment. In so he did that he all was do under Article there is no indica- Section tion in the Senate the Constitution that non-action operates while it is fоreclose the granted exercising right, consti- the same section, appoint during recess of tutional at 10, Senate.” Id. A.2d at 905.
Again suggestion appointment rejecting favored, advice and consent of should be Opinion Support three Justices in an a Per Curiam *11 Judges al., Twelve et Order in Creamer v. Common Pleas (1971) 484, reasoned: 495-96, 443 Pa. 62 281 A.2d interpretations argued “It we have that the has been power Execu- places reached undue hands power of tive, if the misused could circumvent Conversely, how- to the Senate advise and consent. place ever, holding opposition to un- could be said power Senate, cir- in if could duе which misused power appoint. These to cumvent the Governor in arguments were and answered Court raised validity Because of the wisdom and current Lafean. opinion quote aspects, it at on we Court’s these length.” supra, ob recently Stroup Kapleau, we Most served : during Senate, now phrase,
“The the recess of appoint may temporarily tells us when change vacancy thus —not occur. This when must strengthens Lafean, execu- the conclusion in appointments temporary dis- authority tive make perma- authority separate his to make tinct and decision, primarily supra, was While in interpretation Creamer 3. the Court V, it never- an section of article concerned as involved recognized same were considerations theless in an interpretation 8. appoints requiring (Em- nent confirmation.” phasis text). original 179-180, at Id. 455 Pa. A.2d at 241. point Strowp
At another decision the Court stated: power to “We conclude that Governor has make or not recess whether he submitted, has for the a nominee approval, Senate’s permanent appointment. appellant If, for Sena- as the authority tem- argued, tors have to make executive porary appointments limited, it should be for people, Court, not this the Constitution amend Pennsylvaniа.” (Emphasis added). Id. at A.2d
This forth reasons writer also had occasion set underlying theory inten- an rejecting the that there was appointment of Senate tion that and consent advice given preference. remain Because those should be views unaltered, repeat I them here: will argue today’s the Gover-
“To result vests within continually power whimsically circum- nor ‘the requirement advice of Senate vent the constitutional early as ignore that is to Court and consent’ appointive to be used the recess 1918 allowed vacancy happening while the Senate was fill a first *12 omitted). of The (Citation circumvention session. complains approval of the dissent now Senate fully accomplished the ren- when Court was Lafean impotent. dissent of dered the Senate’s an expressed opinion clearly its refusal find That the of language the section in the of 1874 intention appointment by and consent advice dominance of appoint- justify upon the recess would a restriction by implication. ment the only of a reconsideration
If were faced with we judicial interpretation of this constitutional earlier provision, grave difficulty reaching I would have the result of the Court those cases which Lafean But it followed. must be our remembered that task judicial prior interpretations not the reassessment of interpretation people rather an but the will of expressed of this Commonwealth Amendment to the Constitution of this State. searching the the true intent the document of theory government Court’s must be subservient of expressed interpreta- people. prior will The of tion adoption section, 187U former of present significant change section without forces conclusion that the sec- was to construe intention principles tion in accordance announced ignore attempt public To man- now Lafean. judicial over-reaching date toould be most offen- (Emphasis added) Kapleau, Stroup sive nature.” Opinion— (Concurring Pa. A.2d J.) Nix, majority explanation why opinion, without as to precedent controlling justi-
former should to be cease premise consistently repu- embracing fication for now predicates past, diated in the reached to- conclusion day upon authority its view that the to issue procedure preferred commissions exists when Senate) (appointment with the advice and consent of employed. flagrant cannot be This abandonment decisis”, slightest acknowledgment “stare departure any attempt its and absent to demonstrate epitomizes height need, cannot be condoned and judicial irresponsibility.
Viewing, must, think as I we 8 as creating separate appoint- powers two distinct ment, compelled we are ad- conclude that a unilateral journment prevent does the exercise *13 appointment. recess provides:
Article section 8 appoint 8(a) an Attor- The Governor shall “Section Superintendent ney General, a Public Instruction he be authorized such other officers as shall and Attorney appoint. appointment of the law to Superintendent and of Public General, the Instruction may specified by law, shall officers be of such other as subject of the members to the consent of two-thirds electedto the Senate.
(b) Except may or hereafter be otherwise now appellate provided and other in this Constitution as to during may, judges, Senate, fill he the recess of the va- appoints happening in offices to which he cancies granting expiring its end of session commissions happening in the Audi- fill the office of vacancies any elective other Treasurer or tor General State vacancy happens authorized to fill. If office he is except during as otherwise the session of provided Constitution, nominate to in this he shall person adjournment, proper Senate, final its before ” vacancy fill the . . apparent phrase that the “recess it is While something (b) encompasses more Senate” subsection merely referring parlance parliamentary than the normal meeting, interruption daily I in a cannot to an or break accept majority’s “sine die” it refers to a view that adjournment By adjournment. a “sine die” definition body legislative then the, life of the termination provides existing.4 Under article Adjourn 4. 445 Motion to Sine Die. “Section closing the 3. A die the effect motion sine has terminating before session and all unfinished business House, adjournment die pending upon sine legislation all session, day expires adjourn from a motion to while day destroy cоntinuity and unfin- does not place simply its on the ished takes calendar business Procedure, § day.” Legislative succeeding Mason’s Manual of page 193. note 5 on See *14 during of mem- continuing body term the elective for a ad- Representatives, a “sine die” bers of the House the mandated journment may only occur at the end accept- Thus, years. during the even-numbered “recess of majority that ing reasoning “sine IV, limited to a 8(b) is in article section Senate” holding our totally adjournment inconsistent die” appoint- temporary Strowp recess in where we sustained during an odd-num- ments at the close of a session made year.6 bered the framers mаjority properly noted that
The has adjournment” the term “final article section 8 used adjournment. die” to “sine intended to refer when they did although persuasive However, it is most (b), adjournment” in subsection employ the “final term the Governor designating which the time within when not do so approval it did submit a name Senate must during indicating which period when “fi- of the term power The appointive was effective. use “re- reference to adjournment” in one instance nal the con- forces in in the same subsection the other cess” to a different to refer was an intention that there clusion conclusion our period to reaffirm I am forced time. peri- to that refers Stroup that “recess Senate” yearly ses- of the mandated following od the termination II, sions. article See Brancato, 321 Pa. (1970); v. also Brown 445 at 301 See (1936). 184 A. 92-93 independently of the power to act “No vested in the House adjourns die..... Assembly sine Senate after Assembly, in virtue legislative
The action of the General ., adjourn- convened, with its ended . session which ment.” II, provides: 5. Article Section during continuing body Assembly shall be a The General Representatives shall meet elected. It term for which its year. Tuesday January each noon on the first twelve o’clock Kapleau, supra made after Stroup were 6. The 28, 1971. adjourned Assembly on December the General only ruy judgment un- We now turn to the issue left May Stroup. resolved our decision in unilateral action its annual session? terminate placed upon express recess limitation constitutional pro- section 14 which either House is vides: other, shall,
“Neither without the consent House any other days, for more than nor three place sit- shall be than Houses two *15 ting.” . sug- way language II, section 14 in no of article
gests of adjournment annual session that a final of an concur- one of the Houses cannot be effectuated adjourn- other, provided rence of the however Fur- complies provisions ment that section. with the of ther, plaintiffs in one instance that at least concede contemplated unilateral a framers of the Constitution by concurrence adjournment final without the Senate Representatives IV, of the of under article where House extraor- “in section 12 the convenes the Governor Senate ex- dinary by of the transaction proclamation ecutive business.” reading
Equally compelling of that a careful is throughout the framers Constitution establishes only when it was term the document used the “Senate” in- not one body. have found meant to refer to that We synonym for a either as stance where “Senate” was used Representatives”. Assembly” or “House of “General appoint- Constitution, participation in the our Under process exclusively and ment is Senate vested significant circumstances that under no Governor. It is joint House of the approval, action is the concurrence right Representatives provided required. The for or power validly exercise his dependent upon appointment the status of not specific Thus, refer- House but rather Senate. 8(b) ence to a recess of the in article quite keeping was not in with the con- fortuitousness but power. stitutional scheme for the exercise impressed argument аreWe not with the that since the beginning legislative Pennsylvania, of annual sessions Assembly consistently adopted the General has concur- adjournment regardless rent resolutions for sine die proximity succeeding next The fact session. body power particular that a not does elect use a impressive body possess evidence that does not power, particularly showing in absence of a of cir- provided compelling cumstances that would have need question. for the exercise of the Here, conformity II, with article section 14 the Sen- adjourn- ate declared a which in recess effect was final expiratiоn ment of the annual session because of the life of the session virtue of article section 4. attempt distinguish resulting To from recess one joint action would create a distinction without meaning wholly unsupported language majority clear intention of the Constitution. As the Stroup, supra this Court observed 313 A.2d at *16 240:
“In challenges the face of have constitutional we frequently legisla- legislative said acts of the branch, tive Assembly, the General in which the su- preme legislative power (article II, section vested 1), presumed clearly are to be constitutional unless shown to be otherwise.” II, 14,
Under article a new session was mandat- January ed to Tuesday, commence at 12 o’clock noon on Necessarily, 1974. the former le- session would have gally expired at 11:59 on A.M. that date. Therefore the recessing action taken the Senate on December requirement 1973 fulfills the section 14 days. that it was a recess of than less three To conclude that this recess did not fact terminate the annual ses- majority’s attempt fact, to de- contrary
sion something of an an- scribe it less than a termination is, my judgment, completely nual session foundation. legally
I would therefore hold
the defendants
appoint-
have been
entitled to thé offices
complaints should be dismissed.
ed and that the
Decided Nov.