81 Miss. 1 | Miss. | 1906
after the appearance of the last preceding volume of these reports, called attention to the fact that his dissenting opinion in the above entitled case did not contain an addendum made by him some days after its delivery. This addendum should be read into his dissenting opinion, following the paragraph ending near the top of page 112, 81 Miss. Reports.
The addendum is as follows-:
“Since writing the above, one of the learned judges of the supreme court of Florida called my attention to a case precisely in point and squarely upholding the power of the governor to institute this suit. The case is State ex rel. Francis P. Fleming, Governor, v. John L. Crawford, Secretary of State, 28 Fla., 441 (10 South. Rep., 118 ; 14 L. R. A., 253). The facts are these: The governor appointed Robert H. M. Davidson United States senator to succeed Wilkinson Call, whose term expired on March 3, 1891. This appointment was made during a recess of the legislature, and was to last until the next meeting of the legislature:- The governor issued Ihe commission and signed it, and instructed and directed the secretary of state to seal it with the great seal of the state and to countersign it, as required by the constitution. The secretary of state refused to do either.
“It is also contended that neither the state nor the governor has any such interest in or relation to the specific act sought to be enforced as authorizes or justifies the institution of this suit. It is entirely clear, from the authorities (Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137 [2 L. ed., 600] ; United States v. LeBaron, 19 How., 73 [15 L. ed., 525], and Advisory Opion, 12 Fla., 686), and what has been announced in preceding portions of this opinion, that the executive or governmental duty of completing a commission is not consummated until it has been sealed and countersigned. Even admitting that, when a commission has been signed and delivered by the governor to the secretary of state, the appointee named therein, who may have previously taken the oath and given bond or done anything necessary to justify him in entering into the office upon the perfection of the commission,
I note with satisfaction that, among the many authorities cited by Chief Justice Raney,, he strongly relies upon State ex rel. Mahan v. Dubuclet, 22 La. Ann., 602, and Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How., 66 (16 L. ed., 717), both of which cases I have referred to supra; quoting from the latter the identical paragraph wffiich I quoted. I add this authority to those formerly cited as one of the strongest and best reasoned cases to be found on the subject.