Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

the constitution forbids or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the states, or a session of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent. But with these exceptions it is not perceived that there is any limit to the questions which can be adjusted touching any matter that is properly the subject of negotiation with a foreign country."

§ 609. Interstate privileges and immunities and other interstate relations.-The federal constitution declares that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." This provision means nothing more nor less than that one state shall not pass laws discriminating against persons because they are citizens of other states. Thus a state law prohibiting the right of inheritance to persons who are citizens of another state would be void as contrary to this provision. A state law taxing the property of the citizens of other states at a higher rate than it taxes like property of its own citizens is also void.

The federal constitution also provides that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state; and the congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect thereof." This provision enables a person to enforce the judgment of a state court in any state in which the other party may be found.

The constitution also provides for the extradition of a person charged with treason, felony or any other crime who has fled to another state, upon the demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled.

§ 610. Relations between state and federal govern

[ocr errors]

ment. The federal constitution provides that "this constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Under this provision any conflicts between the laws of the federal and state governments are resolved in favor of the former. This also impliedly prohibits the state from interfering with the operation of any agency created by the federal government in the exercise of its powers. Thus a state may not tax the bank-notes of the national bank nor United States bonds, nor the salary of federal officers. The state may, however, tax the property owned by private individuals although such property is employed in the federal service.

On the other hand, it is held that the federal government can not tax the property of the state government, the salary of state employés, or bonds issued by the state.

[blocks in formation]

§ 611. Administrative law in general.-Administrative law is frequently spoken of as dealing with all the provisions of the law regulating the various matters of public administration, such as the public schools, elections, local government or taxation. In this country, however, there is a tendency to restrict this term to the rules of law governing administrative action affecting private rights. Its subject-matter then becomes in the words of Professor Freund". nature and the mode of exercise of administrative power and the system of relief against administrative action." The limitations of space restrict us to but one phase of the subject, namely, relief against administrative action. The relief is generally secured through a suit for damages against the officers or government, or through the extraordinary legal remedies, or through appeals to the judiciary. This chapter is confined to the first two methods of relief, which are based upon general principles of the common law. The remedy through appeal is open only when provided for by statute. 385

25-Elem. Law.

§ 612. Liability of officers to suits for damages.— Wherever the law clothes one or more persons with power and imposes the duty to do certain acts, the corresponding right exists in the public or in individuals to have that duty correctly and honestly performed. The duty may be violated either through mere honest error, or through malicious and corrupt motives. But it is not for every such violation that the law gives a remedy, and for some violations the only remedy is in an action by the state, by mandamus or prohibition, by indictment or by impeachment.

In order to determine what, if any, remedy exists, the act in question must be submitted to several tests.

One test is whether the act was within or in excess of the authority conferred. If within authority the officer is generally protected, if in excess he may not be.

Another test is whether the act in question be one that involves the exercise of judgment or discretion as to the manner and propriety of doing it, or whether it is merely ministerial, that is, the manner and propriety of its performance is precisely fixed by law. For acts of the discretionary kind the officer generally enjoys immunity from suit; for acts that are merely ministerial, he may be held responsible in legal proceedings.

Still another test lies in the effect of the act in question. Every violation of official duty is in some sense an injury to both the public, as a whole, and to every individual of the community. There are, however, some official duties that are imposed primarily for the public benefit, and that affect individuals only incidentally; and again there are duties that are imposed primarily for individual benefit, though they may also have an incidental public effect. For example, on the one hand there is embezzlement of public funds by an officer; on the other hand, refusal by a sheriff to execute a lawful civil writ,

In the former case there is no private right of action, but the remedy is confined to the state; in the latter case, the one specially injured may generally have redress.

It will be of advantage to consider more in detail the acts of various official bodies and persons, in order to ascertain the quality of the acts, and the remedies, if any, that are given.

§ 613. Liability of legislative officers. It is obvious that all of the legislature's acts are governmental and discretionary. In their nature, its powers are exercised primarily for the public benefit and only secondarily for private benefit. The legislature as a body can have no ministerial duties to perform. Hence, even though the majority or all of the legislators may, in a special instance, have acted from malicious and corrupt motives, whereby injury has been caused to an individual, there can be no remedy by private suit.

Subordinate legislative bodies, however, such as municipal councils, may have duties to perform that are merely ministerial; for example, keeping streets in repair. For the wrongful performance or nonperformance of such duties, if primarily for individual benefit, they may be held liable at the suit of one specially injured.

Acts of the legislature in excess of its authority are void, and will be so declared by the courts.

§ 614. Liability of executive and administrative officers. The executive power of the United States is vested in the president, and of the several states in the governors. In the exercise of their respective executive functions, they are not subject to the processes of courts, upon the fundamental principle that the three coordinate branches of the government must be independent of each other's control. So long as an act is within the

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »