In re Answer of Justices

• Decision Date: 30 April 1946
• Citation: 319 Mass. 731,66 N.E.2d 358
• Parties: ANSWER OF JUSTICES.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

319 Mass. 731

66 N.E.2d 358

ANSWER OF JUSTICES.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

April 30, 1946.

Questions on construction of existing statutes submitted to the Supreme Judicial Court by the House of Representatives.

Answers refused.To the Honorable the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court respectfully submit this reply to an order adopted by the House of Representatives on April 10, 1946, and transmitted to the Justices on April 15, 1946. A copy of the order is hereto annexed, together with a copy of a bill pending before the House providing merely that ‘Chapter twenty-five of the acts of eighteen hundred and eighty-three, entitled ‘An Act Providing That the Mayor of the City of Springfield shall be Ex Officio a Member and Chairman of the School Committee’, is hereby repealed.'

The questions submitted are as follows: ‘1. Since the enactment by the general court of chapter one hundred and forty-one of the acts of nineteen hundred and thirty-six has the mayor of the city of Springfield been ex officio the chairman of the school committee of said city? 2. Does section seven of said chapter one hundred and forty-one repeal so much of section one of chapter twenty-five of the acts of eighteen hundred and eighty-three as provides that the mayor of the city of Springfield shall ex officio be chairman of the school committee of said city?'

In accordance with principles that have been stated frequently, under the Constitution the Justices have no right to answer these questions. Their duty with respect to rendering opinions to the legislative or executive department is defined by the Constitution, Part II, c. 3, art. 2, as follows: ‘Each branch of the legislature, as well as the governor and council, shall have authority to require the opinions of the justices of the supreme judicial court, upon important questions of law, and upon solemn occasions.’ In Opinion the Justices, 314 Mass. 767, 770, 49 N.E.2d 252, 255, it was said, quoting from previous answers of the Justices: “It has been frequently pointed out that the Justices ought not to give opinions under this provision of the Constitution unless required to do so by its terms.' Answer of the Justices, 290 Mass. 601, 603, 195 N.E. 357, 358. The ‘Justices are forbidden to go beyond the requirement of the Constitution. The Constitution not only limits their duty but bounds their right to express opinions.’ Answer of the Justices, 214 Mass. 602, 603, 102 N.E. 644, 645. ‘While it is our duty to render opinions in all those cases in which either branch of the legislature or the governor and council may properly require them, it is not the less our duty, in view of the careful separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the government, to abstain from doing so in any case which does not fall within the constitutional clause relating thereto.’ Answer of the Justices, 150 Mass. 598, 601, 24 N.E. 1086, 1087.'

The questions now submitted do not fall within the governing constitutional clause, Part II, c. 3, art. 2. These questionsrelate merely to the existing law bearing upon the subject matter of the pending bill. In Opinion of the Justices, 314 Mass. 767, 49 N.E.2d 252, the Justices had before them an order by which three questions were submitted. The first question related to the authority of the Supreme Court under existing law to review or to provide for the review of criminal contempt cases. The Justices said, 314 Mass. at pages 771, 772, 49 N.E.2d at page 255: ‘The constitutional power and duty of the Justices to render opinions to a branch of the legislative department do not extend to making an exposition of existing law except so far as may be necessary in answering specific questions as to the power and authority of the Legislature to enact a pending bill. Answer of the Justices, 217 Mass. 607, 612, 613, 105 N.E. 440. See also Answer of the Justices, 148 Mass. 623, 625, 626, 21 N.E. 439. It may well be that advice as to the authority of the Supreme Judicial Court to review or to provide for the review of criminal contempt cases would aid the Legislature in determining the wisdom or expediency of proposed legislation. But questions bearing only upon the wisdom and expediency of proposed legislation-and not upon the power and authority of the Legislature to pass such legislation-cannot...