Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1866-01-02

other language Of the statutes, the legal
Treasurer of State. They denied tho con-
stitutionallty OF this statute, for depriving
thai officer of his office summarily and
without . trial, and, as understood them,
because 1t impaired to the Governor, the
Auditor and The Comptroller what were
called judicial powers" Asa consequence
of these propositions they denied all legal
ityin these Proceedings, aveTred that there
was no vacancy in the office, and refused
positively to give up the keys, or In any
way to surrender the office. And after this
distinct notification of their claim of his
legal right, and of his refusal, as q fact, they
demanded to know what would now be
done by the Governor. I'll "a n L..
They were informed that the section and
act In question would be simply, butts strict
" pursued; that, though 1t might be true
that they were unconstitutional and void,
IL would not do for the Governor, or any
other Executive officer, a pri0ri, to assume
Cheir invalldity, or that Of any other act Of
the General Assembly Of the State, nor ~
do any thing, nor omit TO DO any thing,
nor yet, within the scope of his authority
to suffer Others to, do, or to omit any thing,
which rested upon that assumption as us
basis, rliir riH,gJ f1sa.v' 'uf- -aauIl rf .Hd - !,
They were informed, however. as had
been proposed, for their consideration, sew
eral days beforehand, that the keys of the
Treasury and safes should be so divided
and held between the Auditor (representT
ing the State) and the late Treasurer (pro-
tecting his own and his securities rights,
that neither party could get access to the
treasure without u assent and presence OF
the other. This proposition was also defi-
nitely declined, with declaration, that
being the legal and sole Treasurer, DR..
Dorsey could allow no divided empire In
that Office which was exclusively his. And
another demand was made as TO the, course
Of proceeding, after this refusal. j'at tog
They were next advised, In substance,
that only so much force should be used to
elect the claimant and TO obtain possession
OF the office and its keys, as was consistent
with that fixed purpose, and with the kind
ly and friendly feelings existing between
the personal parties to the discusslon' ms
proposition (i0r 1t was made IN the form oil
a decision, but in the spirit OF an oiier), was
in like manner peremptorily decllned;-
Thereupon they were as peremptorily tolu,
that all the necessary power OF the State
should be exerted, and moreover, that asl-
Derabundant force was waiting In readiness
TO execute this full procedure instantly up
on the Sheriff signing and making his re-
turn of the writ. rI. ... H....s
An expostulation was next used. What
necessity, it was asked, was there for force,
when peaceable remedy, so easy and COM
plete, was so close at handP The suggested
remedy being supposed to be a suit to OBJ
tain this office, the counsel were reminded
that civil action was not prescribed by
this law, and were assured that 1t and 1t
alone should be strictly pursued in all its
lines and limits. Then followed the Instant
demand: What authority, by this or any
other law, the Governor had In the Treas
ury of the State, or what further authority
he had in these particular proceedings, at
ter issuing the order and causing the ar
rest? To this most pertinent and some
what startling interrogatory, no other, or
er,reply could be then given, or can now
be thought of, than these, viz: That the
Governor Is made by the Constitution 1.-THE
supreme executive Of the State, and Is spe-
eially commanded" Ito see that the laws
are faithfully executed;" and, finally, that
If the proposed action could not be suffici-
emily derived or implied from this general
authority, what further powers were legally
wanting, must be forcibly usurped, TO meet
an exigency and dangers to the public as
great as these. For, alter the law had declar-
ed this office vacant, and especially and em-
Illdly upOu hoohohNC Va "Nho
order, all the 'Otfcidl poIoerS and functions
of this particular individual ''shdH cease
and determine" ''dnd he shall no Longer be
Treasurer" if the Governor, charged with
the enforcement of the laws, should still
suffer him to remain in the Office. it was
very clear that if he should thereafter pro-
ceed to plumber the Treasury of its last
dollar, and to the amount of millions, the
State would be without a preventive reme-
DIV, and his sureties would be by law, who'll
ly exempted from their liability for him;
since the State would at least be estOpped
from denying that the office was vacant,
and from asserting that he was the Treas
urer. Such dilemma made an exigency
too pressing and dangerous to lose tins or
increase perils by dallying with doubtsas
to want Of literal powers. MOrever, as to
the Governors want of authority in the
Treasury, it was plain enough that, little
as he might possibly have, he had at least
more than the late Treasurer; since the for
mer had not been, as the latter, definitely
excluded thereirom. 51lri L.lfr.
The hiatus, or gap, in the proceedings re-
quired by this actin regard to where the
right of possession of this Office shall lie,
after the Treasurer has been stripped OF
his right and before his successor she'll
have been appointed and qualiiied-de-
mands much grave consideration in amend
ing it. This question was symbOlized in
this controversy by the contest for the
"keys.p 1t is now necessary to explain the
strait in which the State was placed by this
uncertainty OF. the law. '...tl
The only precedent for the custody of the
keys of the Treasury during that inter-
regnum which must exist In this interval
or vacaney in the office of State Treasurer,
was that made by the then Governor (Chase)
in the case of the removal Of Gibson, and
during the preparation of the bond of Mr..
Stone. The Governor himself took, and
kept possession of the keys during that in-
terval. With the greatest respect for the
legal judgment and the discretion of that
eminent jurist, [ thought this precedent
not good one. i therefore promptly de-
termined not to follow it. 1t seemed to me
bad TOR these reasons, viz: It's unjust to the
outgoing Treasurer. Whatever embezzle-
ments he may have committed, he is, never
theless, entitled to true statement of his
own accounts, and to perfect security
that the defalcations of no other person
shall be charged upon him. Next, the Gov
ernor, acting in his executive duty, and
necessarily subiecting, himself to unkind
and reseDtful feelings of the accused
party and his friends, ought not to
be required to take upon himself, without
express directions Of the law,such a fiduci-
airy trust under circumstances so open to
suspicion, or the suggestion OF suspicion.
| And, lastly, such seizare OF the keys from
the "TreasureEn Isand 90 retention of
them1o by tIe1 Governor or by his
agents, would undoubtedly release
the G sUfeties of theh Treasurer from
all I liability for defaleations siibse-