" $
216
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
COUNTY COlo/UnSSIONERS
February 25, 1933.
AUTHORIZED TO RECOMMEND INSPECTORS MARKS AND BRANDS
Dear Sir:
This refers to your letter of February 23rd, requesting my opllllOn
as to whether or not a recommendation by the board of county commis- .
sioners is essential in the appointment of inspectors of marks and
brands.
In reply, permit me to say Section 6960 of the Compiled General
Laws reads as follows:
"It shall be the duty of the county commissioners of the
various counties of this state to recommend to the Governor
for appointment one or more insp~ctors of marks and brands
of the hides of beef or marks of hogs butchered at each cattle
district, or in every election precinct where the county is not
divided into cattle districts, where it appears to the county
commissioners to be advisable, or upon a petition of a majority
of the stockmen of such cattle district Or election precinct.
The term of office of· said inspector shall be for four years."
It appears from· the provisions of the statute quoted above that
in counties which have been divided into cattle districts, it is the duty
of the board of county commissioners to recommend to the Governor
for appointment one or more inspectors of marks and brands for each
cattle district, or in every election precinct where the county is not divided
into cattle districts, if it appears to the county commissioners to be
advisable. It further appears under the provisions of this statute that
the Governor may make the appointments upon a petition of a majority
. of the stockmen of the cattle district or election precinct.
In view of the language of the statute, it is my opinion that the
county commissioners may recommend the appointment of inspectors,
and that they may recommend the names of persons to be appointed.
But under the organic law of this state and the decisions of the Supreme
Court, the Governor is not required to appoint those persons recom­
mended. The Supreme Court of Florida has held that where a statute
attempts to restrict the appointing power of the Governor by limiting
his choice to certain persons to be selected by some other perSOn or
persons, the same is unconstitutional and void as an infringement upon
the Governor's exclusive constitutional right of appointment.
offi
clla
mel
of 1
I a:
the
aut
on
Det
COl
at
COl
of'
gen
by'
doe
tha
the
Dea
HOl
wor
mis
January 6, 1933.
PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS ON BONDS, BY COUNTY AUTHORIZED
FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND MEMBERS
OF SCHOOL BOARD
mis
po",
cou:
Res
pri,
Dew" Sir:
Gou
R,eplying to your tavor of the 4th instant, in which you ask to be
advised whether or not the premium on the bonds of the several county
for
rna;
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
217
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
officers of your county may be paid by the county or may be legally
charged as expenses of the office, permit me to say:
Section 2419, compiled General Laws, expressly authorizes the pay­
ment of the premiums on· bonds of county commissioners and members
of the board of public instruction, by the county and the school board.
I am unable, however, to find a statute authorizing the county to pay
the premiums on bonds of other officers, .and I am unable to find any
authority which would permit a county officer to charge the premium
on his bond against the expenses of .his office.
January 24, 1933.
LAW REQUIRES INSPECTION OF OFFICE AND RECOFtDS BY
,
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EVERY THREE MONTHS
Dear Sir:
Replying to yours of the 18th instant, permit me to say Section 2196,
Comp~led General Laws of 1927, requiring the County Commissioners to
at least every three months inspect the offices and records of certain
County Officers is a valid subsisting statute at this time. The language
of the statute appears to be mandatory. I do not think the statute is
. generally observed.
You ask to be advised wl1.ether or not the law would permit inspection
by the Commissioners at periods shorter than three months. The statute
does not authorize the Commissioners to make such inspections oftener
than once every three months.
Allow me to suggest that you take this and similar matters up with
the Attorney for your Board.
June 9, 1933.
KANNER BILL-COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY RESOLUTION
SHOULD DIRECT THE PURCHASE OF BONDS UNDER SAME
Dear Sir:
It seems to me that the Bill you refer to, to-wit: the Kanner Bill, or
House Bill No. 30, Chapter 15891, Acts of the 1933 session, is a practical
workabie law, and with reference to the approval of the County Com­
missi'Oners, it seems to me that the Bill requires that the County Com­
missioners should pass a Resolution authoriZing, or rather approving the
powers of the state Board of Administration to buy bonds, and they, of
Course, 'shall also approve the amount of the money to be used. Such
Resolution may also contain Whatever restrictions, limitations and the
price to be paid, and the class Or series or issues to be purchased as the
County Commisisoners may see fit to approve; and this may be given
for such period of time as in the judgment of the County Commissioners
may deem is best for the interests of the county. In other words, the law