State v. Butler
Decision Date | 06 January 1909 |
Parties | STATE, ON INF. OF HAMLIN, ATTY. GEN v. BUTLER. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Somerset County.
Information, in the nature of quo warranto, by Hannibal E. Hamlin, Attorney General, in the name of the state, but at the relation of Thomas J. Young, county attorney for Somerset county, against Amos K. Butler. Case reported to the law court for determination. Judgment of ouster.
An information in the nature of quo warranto filed by Hannibal E. Hamlin in his capacity as Attorney General of the state for and in the name of the state, but at and by the relation of Thomas J. Young, who was county attorney for the county of Somerset, against the defendant, Amos K. Butler, who had been appointed "special attorney for the state" in said county, to act in all matters relating to the enforcement of the laws against the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, and was acting in such matters.
The information is as follows:
The defendant filed an answer, alleging, among other things, that he was acting in matters in said county relating to the enforcement of the laws against the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors under and by virtue of his appointment, commission, and qualification under the provisions of Pub. Laws 1905, p. 95, c. 92, § 8. The matter came on for hearing at the March term, 1908, Supreme Judicial Court, in said county, and, after certain admissions had been made, the case was "reported to the law court to render such judgment as the law may require."
Argued before EMERY, C. J., and WHITEHOUSE, PEABODY, SPEAR, CORNISH, KING, and BIRD, JJ.
Augustine Simmons, for Thomas J. Young, County Atty. Arthur S. Littlefield, for Amos K. Butler, Sp. Atty.
We think the validity of the respondent's claim to exercise the governmental function of public prosecutor in Somerset county will be best determined by looking straight at the language of the Constitution and of the statute and at established principles, and freely allowing them their full, natural effect.
The people of Maine in organizing their government as a state vested the legislative power of the government in a body "to be styled the Legislature of Maine" (Const. art. 4, p. 1, § 1), and did not confer any such power on any other person or body, and did not authorize the Legislature to do so. It follows that the Legislature alone can exercise the legislative power, and alone is responsible for its wise exercise, and hence cannot transfer any of the power nor any of the responsibility to any other department or person. Says Judge Cooley in his Constitutional Limitations (Gth Ed.) p. 137: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Craig v. O'Rear
... ... state normal schools already established can neither ... reach nor train all the elementary teachers needed for the ... common schools: Therefore, ... prescribed standards stated in the law. Other authorities ... sustaining this view are State of Maine v. Butler, ... 105 Me. 91, 73 A. 560, 24 L.R.A. (N. S.) 744, 18 Ann.Cas ... 484; Gilhooly v. City of Elizabeth, 66 N. J. Law, ... 484, 49 A. 1106; ... ...
-
State Ex Rel. Richards v. Moorer
...or other appointee or delegate of the Legislature." 6 R. C. L., p. 165, § 166, and cases cited in note; State ex rel. v. Butler, 105 Me. 91, 73 A. 560, 562, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 745; Arms v. Ayer, 192 111. 601, 61 N. E. 851, 58 L. R. A. 277, 85 Am. St. Rep. 358; Schaezlin v. Ca-baniss, 135 C......
-
State ex rel. Board of Police Commr. v. Beach
... ... They, therefore, do not constitute a body or a board having legislative functions. This court has recently held that only the Legislature can create offices and fix salaries. [State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Smiley et al., 304 Mo. l.c. 557. See also State v. Butler, 105 Me. 91, 18 Ann. Cases, 489, note; Mer. Ex. v. Knott et al., 212 Mo. 616.] The Legislature has not attempted expressly or impliedly to delegate to the Board the power to create offices or positions outside of the plain letter of the law, and had it attempted to do so, it would have been ... ...
-
Myrick v. James
...malpractice, I must respectfully dissent. The obligation to support the constitution is imperative and unceasing. State v. Butler, 105 Me. 91, at 102, 73 A. 560 (1909). The dissent in Anderson fully answers the majority's opinion in this case and I see no useful purpose to be served in rest......