In re Opinion of the Judges, 7224

• Decision Date: 09 February 1931
• Docket Number: 7224
• Citation: 234 N.W. 671,58 S.D. 72
• Parties: In Re OPINION OF THE JUDGES.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

58 S.D. 72

234 N.W. 671

In Re OPINION OF THE JUDGES. South Dakota Supreme Court Original Proceeding #7224—Answers to questions propounded by the Governor Opinion filed Feb 9, 1931

Chambers of The Supreme Court

Pierre, 9 February, 1931.

His Excellency, Warren E. Green, Governor of South Dakota.

Sir:

We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt on Saturday afternoon, February 7, of a communication from you, addressed to the judges of this Court, which reads:

“I respectfully request your opinion upon certain important questions of law involved in the exercise of my executive powers as Governor of the State of South Dakota, as follows:

“There has been passed by the twenty-second session of the legislature of the State of South Dakota and I have approved a certain act identified as Senate Bill No. 29, which is entitled:

“‘A Bill For an Act Entitled, An Act to Repeal Sections 1 and 2 of Chapter 187 of the Session Laws of South Dakota for 1927, or to Abolish the South Dakota Rural Credit Board and to Create a New Rural Credit Board for the Management and Control of the System of Rural Credits Heretofore Established, Defining the Powers, Duties and Functions of said Rural Credit Board and its Officers, Repealing Certain Conflicting Provisions and Declaring an Emergency to Exist and Making said Act in Full Force and Effect from and after its passage and Approval.’

“The act would change the official personnel of the rural credit board and would require that I assume supervision by becoming the chairman of the board. It also enforces a reduction of expenses to the extent of $2200.00 per year, and permits a total saving of $5200.00 per year; and possibly some additional saving, depending upon the amount at which the rural credit board might fix the salary of secretary.

“The act also furnishes opportunity for improvement in the conduct of the office, by regulation of the policy of the office thru the Board, and thereby giving them a right to make further reductions in expense by fixing number of employees and amount of compensation, thereof.

“There is an emergency clause attached to the act which, if now in full force and effect, would operate to leave the state without any officers competent to operate the rural credit department; and there would in fact be no persons with statutory authority to satisfy mortgages, renew mortgages, sell real estate, make leases and to perform other functions necessary to the operation of said department.

“If the emergency clause attached to said act is not in full force and effect at present I assume that the present officers could legally perform the functions until July first when the act would take effect, unless it should be stayed by referendum in the meantime. “It is therefore important that I have your opinion upon the following question:

“Is Senate Bill No. 29, as passed and approved, in fact a law necessary for the immediate support of the state government and its existing public institutions, as declared in the emergency section number six of said act, so that it is immediately effective?”

The judges of this court and their predecessors in office have always been extremely hesitant to render ex parte opinions where substantial private rights are involved, and have entertained the opinion that only the gravest and most urgent necessity would justify the judges in so doing, and the judges have said:

“To avoid grave injustice and abuse, the most extraordinary caution and conservatism should be exercised in propounding and in answering such questions, and the same must relate...