394 FIFTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 



the same or different papers; the opinion filed shows that said motion 

 was denied upon the ground that the Attorney-General had no right to 

 make it. 



" For the purpose of determining the right of the Attorney-General 

 to make the motion, we must assume that the allegations in the moving 

 papers are true. The Attorney-General is a constitutional official and his 

 principal duties are from time to time defined by statute. We cannot 

 agree with him that he alone is authorized to represent the State as attorney 

 in bringing actions in the name of The People of the State. The statutes 

 from time to time define the rights, the duties and the authority of the 

 different State boards as well as of the Attorney-General and where per- 

 mitted by statute such boards may bring actions in the name of The People 

 by special counsel employed by them. The Forest, Fish and Game Com- 

 mission is authorized in the name of The People, through special counsel, 

 to bring actions to recover damages for trespass on lands in the forest 

 preserve. The action was, therefore, properly brought and the Attorney- 

 General has not the right to insist upon being substituted as attorney in 

 place of the special counsel acting for the commission." 



Upon a subsequent hearing at Special Term, this department applied 

 for a vacating of the judgment and a setting aside of all proceedings 

 subsequent to the joinder of issue, and a decision was made and order 

 entered thereon vacating and setting aside the stipulation, order and 

 judgment and all proceedings subsequent to the answer in the action, 

 and canceling the deeds of record given under the settlement agreement. 

 An appeal was taken from this order which is now pending undeter- 

 mined in the Appellate Division, Third Department. 



By this litigation the constitutionality of the statutes conferring upon 

 various State boards and commissions the power to employ counsel to 

 prosecute and defend its legal business has thus far been settled in favor 

 of the validity of such acts. 



For many years past it has been the policy of the State, in the interest 

 of a thorough and competent prosecution of its legal business to enact stat- 

 utes of this character, and the necessities of various departments of the 

 State government, of which none is more obvious and urgent than those 

 of the Forest, Fish and Game Commission, demand the services of attorneys 



