Imágenes de páginas

position. The central administration cannot remove the officers of the local administration in any normal case. Altogether no such decentralism is known in any other nation as is found in the United States throughout.

There is but one external division in the federal administration--that one that divides it from the administrations of the states. Within itself the federal administration is a single administration. All of its subdivisions are internal ones, as is the case in any centralized administration; while in any decentralized administration like that of the states the organization is based upon external division. That is the fundamental difference between the law of the federal administration, which is based upon administrative relations, and the administrations of the state, which are based upon legal relations. Thus the divisions of the federal administration are internal, while those of the state administration are external.41

$ 55. Federal.

The national administration in the United States constitutes a complete system, separate altogether from the state administration. This is not indispensable in a federal government. In some such governments the officers of the states do work for the federation. There is no such situation in the United States; indeed, no officer of the state as an officer of the state has functions to perform for the United States by virtue of that position, so separate are these administrations in point of law.

41 EXTERNAL SUBDIVISIONS.—Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257; Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371; In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1; Ohio v. Thomas, 173 U. S. 284; In re Beine, 42 Fed. 546; Campbell v. Waite, 88 Fed. 106; Ex parte Wiley, 54 Ala. 226; Hathcote v. State, 55 Ark. 183; People v. Whitman, 10 Cal. 38; People v. Curley, 5 Colo. 412; State v. Hocker, 39 Fla. 477; Mehringer v. State, 20 Ind. 103; State v. Waite, 101 Ia. 380; State v. Lamantia, 33 La. Ann. 446; Melcher v. Boston, 9 Met. 75; Fuller v. Ellis, 98 Mich. 96; State v. Kiichli, 53 Minn. 147; People v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44; Oliver v. Jersey City, 63 N. J. L. 96; State v. Clarke, 3 Nev. 566; De Turk v. Commonwealth, 129 Pa. St. 151; In re Corliss, 11 R. I. 638; State v. Buttz, 9 S. C. 156; McGregor v. Balch, 14 Vt. 428.

One case will be enough to show that divisionJudge Handlin, 11 Opin. 116 (1864). The gist of the complaint of this Judge Handlin was that Governor Hahn of Louisiana had treated him unjustly in removing him from office without cause. In his letter to the Pres. ident of the United States he said: Governor Hahn had no power to take the step he did; he could have no power then, except he derived it from you, the President. The President asked the Attorney-General whether he had any power to interfere in the controversy.

Attorney-General BATES said: I do not perceive that the President has any power to interfere between the conflicting officials of the same state government. He is not the judge of the officers of the state. If, as Mr. Handlin affirms, the Governor had no power under the state constitution to remove him from office and vacate his commission, the state judiciary alone has power to hear and determine the question of right; and if they find the Governor in the wrong, and the judge in the right, they will doubtless be able to protect the judge in the enjoyment of his office, and in the legal exercise of his legitimate functions. I think it is a matter which belongs entirely to the state of Louisiana, and that the President has no legal authority in the premises.

The division between the two administrations is more than a matter of law, however; it is a matter of fact, as well. Not only have the state officers as officers no function in the national administration, but the state officers as persons are as a matter of universal practice not made officers of the national administration. This depends largely upon the executive order in the national administration which declares in effect that acceptance by a national officer of an office under a state will in usual cases be considered a resignation by such officer of his appointment in the service of the United States. The effect of this is discussed in the Incompatibility Case, 4 Lawrence, 486 (1883).

In his general discussion of this matter LAWRENCE, the Comptroller, said: Such acceptance does not ipso facto divest the national officer of the title to his office under the United States, but subjects such officer to removal in the discretion of the proper authority. Each state can prescribe the qualifications of its own officers, but not those of national officers. Congress can prescribe the qualifications generally of national officers, but not of state officers. On principles of constitutional law inherent in the structure of the dual system of national and state governments in the United States, and without any express provision on the subject, it is possible that there may be incompatibility in law, however. It will be seen, therefore, that as a matter of fact the division between the administration of the United States and the administrations of the states is complete. 42

42 FEDERAL.–Dobbins v. Erie Co. Com’rs, 16 Pet. 435; Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113; In re Lee, 46 Fed. 61; Wood v. Drake, 70 Fed. 881; In re Strawbridge, 39 Ala. 387; Hollingsworth v. State, 111 Ind. 289; Melcher V. Boston, 9 Met. 75; Fuller v. Ellis, 98 Mich. 96; Oliver v. Jersey City, 63 N. J. L. 96; In re Treasurers' Appointment, 5 Kulp. 98; State v. Buttz, 9 S. C. 156; Calloway v. Sturm, 1 Heisk. 764; McGregor v. Balch, 14 Vt. 428.

$ 56. State.

In each state of the United States there are three grades of administration. The administration of the state, the administration of the county, and the administration of the local body—these three. This is so because the governmental organization of necessity determines the external division of the administrative organization. These three degrees of government, each in action independent of the other, make up a condition of disorganization in government unknown elsewhere. What is back of this is the institutional theory held by the majority of people in the United States. Local selfgovernment is not a legal principle, it is true; but it is an accepted policy, at all events.

The state administration is not central, in truth, for it has no administrative relations with the county administration; the county administration is not the superior of the local administration in any proper sense, for it has no control over it. Hence, the only relations that there may be between the administrations in the states are legal, not administrative. After all, these external divisions depend upon the general constitutional structure within the state. Although this leads the discussion outside of our topic, it is perhaps necessary to sketch these divisions.

In the central administration, a Governor is found as the chief executive in all the states; in a few instances there is an executive council to advise the Governor. Next in grade are the heads of the executive department; these are in part single-headed, in part headed by boards. Next are various officers scattered about the state who exercise functions by direct commission from the state. Altogether, the number of officers thus in the service of the state administration is not infrequently the lowest. That is because the work done by the state in the normal case is least. The central administration plays the smallest part in the government, as it touches the ordinary citizen seldom.

Local organization in the United States may be divided into three classes, which division turns upon whether the county or the town is given the most prominence in government. The division was largely historical, and this matter still remains a local question, therefore. In New England the township system gives the preponderance to the locality. In the south the county system gives most of the functions of the government over to the county. In the middle states there is a system which dates to the Duke of York between these two extremes. In the west there is no regular system, all of the three just mentioned being found. In every system of local government both the county and the locality exist.

Whatever the type of organization, the administrations are independent, as they consist always of separate elective officers. There is some qualification of this statement necessary in dealing with the relations between the township and the county. If the county officers are elected directly by the people without reference to the township, we have the commissioner system. And if the township organization is represented in the county organization by some officers from it, we have the supervisor system. The commissioner system prevails in most

« AnteriorContinuar »