Rensselaer Republican, Volume 19, Number 48, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 August 1887 — THAT . [ARTICLE]

THAT .

Attorney General Michener’* Opinfhlon on Col. Robertson's Kights. He Holds That Col. Robertson Cannot Be Deprived of His Pay and Title By Being Prevented from Officiating. Another opinion of considerable importance in relation to the lieutenantgovernorship has been given by Attorney-general Michener, in reply to questions submitted to him by State Auditor Carr. The opinion relates directly to the question as to whether or not Lieutenant-governor Robertson is entitled to pay as President of the Senate while he was prevented by Mr. Smith and his supporters from performing the duties of the position, but necessarily it also covers the validity of his election and his title tb the o flee. The opinion is a lengthy one, in which Mr. Michener declares Coj. Robertson cannot be deprived of his pay and title because prevented from officiating. He says: “A short time ago I rendered the opinion to the Secretary of State, in wnich I held that Robertson was legally elected to the office of Lieutenant governor at the general election in November, 1885, and I still adhere to that opinion. In Section 1# of Article 5 of our Constitution, it is provided that the Lieu-tenant-governor shall, by virtue of his office, be President of the Senate.” This fixes the right of the Lieutenantgovernor of the Senate. This right is absolute and indisputable from the time he is declared to be the Lieuten-ant-governor until the end of his term, unless he is outset from the office by the judgment of the General Assembly on a contest of his election, under Section 6 of Article 5 of the Constitution, and Sections 4744-4746, Revised Statutes, 1881, and no other body, tribunal, or court can control, supervise or review its decisions concerning the title of the office of Lieutenant-governor. There was no contest of his election, and his title to the office of Lieutenant, governor iS’now beyond the question of any of the departments of the State.” After discussing the matter in its various phases he closes his opinion as follows:

“In the case you present, the record of the canvass by the Speaker in the presence of the two, Houses, of the declaration of the re&ult, and of the oath taken, furnished, at least, prima facie evidence of the title in Robertson. This evidence became conclusive when there was a failure to contest the election before the General Assembly. The title to the office was vested in Robertson when he took the oath of office and he was entitled to perform its duties, enjoy its honors and receive its compensation. He cannot be denied this compensation merely because the Senate refused to allow him to preside over it, That denial did not destroy his title. As the title remained in him notwithstanding the action of the Senate, it is clear that he is entitled to the incident of the title which Is the compensation. “I therefore advise you that you should draw the warrant which is claimed, if the mileage and per diem are stated correctly.” Upon receiving the opinion of the At-torney-General, the Auditor issued a warrant to Col. Robertson for S4BO for his services as Lieutenant-Governor, and in addition to the amount he received as a member of the Roard of Equalization.