February 3, 1934
THE STATE
Page Nine
FAGT8 ABOUT OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
No. 13— The Attorney General
(This is the thirteenth of a scries of
articles appearing in Tire Statu depict¬
ing for Tar Heels the manner in which
the several departments of their state
government arc operated.)
By
DENNIS G. BRUMMITT
Attorney Gcncrol
★
The Attorney General is an elective,
constitutional officer, ami the name of
the office imports that the Attorney Gen¬
eral is the chief law officer of the state
and is to represent the state in its legal
business. That view in confirmed by
Constitution, Article III, Section 14,
“The Attorney General shall be, ex-
officio the legal advisor of the execu¬
tive department.”
Here is an illustration of our highest
court’s conception of the Attorney Gen¬
eral’s place in a state government. When,
in 1927, the State of Connecticut sought
permission of the Supreme Court of
the United States to bring suit against
North Carolina on some of the old Re¬
construction bonds, the petition was
signed and presented, not by the At¬
torney General of Connecticut, but br¬
others. apparently special counsel em¬
ployed for that purpose. When, on
April 16, 1927, I made the motion in
the United States Supreme Court in
opposition to that petition. Justice Van
Devanter ashed why the Attorney Gen¬
eral of Connecticut was not there rep¬
resenting that state, and the court re¬
fused to hear the petition until it had
l>e<-n signed and filed by the Attorney
General of Connecticut.
DENNIS G. BRUMMITT
- ★ -
4; Maryland, 5; Massachusetts, 10;
Michigan, 13; Minnesota, 10; Missis¬
sippi, 3 assistants and 2 special agents;
Missouri 9; Montana, 4; Nebraska, 7;
Nevada, 1; New Hampshire. 1; Now
Jersey. IS; New Mexico, 4; New York.
104 deputies and assistants, 32 investi¬
gators and 17 title examiners; North
Dakota. 5; Ohio, 19; Oklahoma, S;
Oregon, 5; Pennsylvania, 22; Rhode
Island, 4; South Carolina, 2; South
Dakota, 5; Tennessee, 7; Texas, IS;
Utah, 4; Vermont, 1 special investi¬
gator and 1 special counsel; Virginia.
2 regular and 4 special assistants ; Wash¬
ington. 6; West Virginia. 3; Wisconsin.
S deputies and assistants and 4 inves¬
tigators; Wyoming. 3.
More Help Needed
The office force consists of the At¬
torney General, two assistant Attor¬
neys General, and normally, a statis¬
tical clerk-stenographer and two addi¬
tional stenographers. Data assembled
in 1932 hv the Attorney General of
North Dakota show that other states
have assistant or deputy Attorneys Gen¬
eral as follows: Alabama. 6; Arizona.
4; Arkansas, 5; California. 24; Colo¬
rado, 10; Connecticut. 5; Delaware. 4 ;
Florida, 5; Georgia, 6; Idaho, 4; Illi¬
nois, 28; Indiana. 10; Iowa, 6; Kansas,
5; Kentucky 6; Louisiana, 6; Maine.
Duties of Office
I n broad outline, the work and duties
of the Attorney General’s office may bo
summarized as follows:
fa) To represent the state in all
criminal cases in the Supreme Court
of North Carolina.
П0
To give an official opinion upon
any legal matters submitted by any
state department, officer or agency in
connection with the official duties of the
(e) To assemble criminal statistics
from the Superior Courts and certain
inferior courts.
(d) Upon request from the appropri¬
ate officer, to represent the state, or de¬
partment or agency thereof, in any court
and in any matter in which the state
may l»c a party or interested.
(e) To conduct investigations under
the Anti-trust Laws and the Corrupt
Practices Act, relating to primaries and
elections. The office has no appropria¬
tion for the expenses of such inves¬
tigations.
Reference to a few notable cases will
serve to indicate something of the na¬
ture and extent of the work of the
office.
Lea Cose Reviewed
The record in the criminal cases
against Wallace Davis and the Luke Leas
contain 806 and 1.221 pages, respectively.
Preparation of the briefs and argument
of the eases involved intensive study
and analysis of the facts in those rec¬
ords. After the opinion of our Supreme
Court was rendered June 15, 1932, two
efforts were made here to obtain a new
trial. Three efforts were made by the
defendants for a review of the cose in
the Supreme Court of the United States,
in which wo filed briefs. Final order
of the Supreme Court of the United
States, denying the petition, was en¬
tered December 19, 1932. There fol¬
lowed a hearing liefore the Governor
of Tennessee, upon which he granted
extradition; hearing on habeas corpus
Ix-fore a Circuit Court judge in Ten¬
nessee, April II, 1933; appeal by the
Leas and argument of the ease before
the Supreme Court of that state, June
25. 1933; opinion of that court in favor
«if the State of North Carolina, De-
eomlier 9. 1933. There still remains
effort of the Leas for a review by the
Supreme Court of the United States of
the decision of the Tennessee Supreme
Court, they having three months from
December 9. 1933. in which to file their
|>ctition.
Important Litigation
There is now pending before the Su¬
preme Court of the United States ease
of Alabama v. Arizona, North Carolina
and sixteen other states, involving the
constitutionality of the Ilnwes-Coopor
Act and our statute forbidding the sale
of prison-made goods.
Just a few days ago the department
argued in the Supreme Court of the
United States the ease of Kent-Coffey
Manufacturing Company v. Maxwell.
Commissioner of Revenue. This in-
(Continurd on page tircnly-six)
