The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1866-11-02

sums up the whole case between GOV.
Swami and the Police Commission.
ers so clearly, that we commend 1t to
the careful perusal Of our readers:
The real state of the question be.
tween the Governor and the Police
Commissioners c is misunderstood both
at home and abroad A few words
of explanation, therefore, may not be
unacceptable.
The Commissioners admit the right
of the Governor to investigate the
charges against them which have
been laid before him, and IL 1t shall
appear to him that PR boJh case
has been made out, IL will lie his du-
ty TO hand the papers to the Attor
ney General for further inquiry
They profess to show readiness to
meet any charge which may be ad
vanced against them before any ju
jicial tribunal having jurisdiction
over the matter. In the event of a
conviction, they will be subject to
fine and Imprisonment in the discrc
lion of the Court, and the Governor
will have authority, if he deems fit,
to remove or to dismiss them from
office.
The Governor Oh the other hand,
claims the power not only to examine
into the charge, but also, to pro
nounce judgment thereon. and II he
shall find the Commissioners guilty
Of official misconduct, to- remove
them from office. The jurisdiction is
to be exercised by him without mp
peal to any other tribunal.
In their answer to the memorial
the Commissioners stated briefly
their objection TO the Governor
jurisdiction to try and condcm them.
Their counsel were in attendance on
the occasion, prepared to sustain the
objection, but they were denied the
benefit of hearing. The Governor,
Immediately alter the reading of the
answer. and after listening To little
irrevclent sparring between counsel,
declared that he had deliberately
considered the subject, and was salts
iied that he had the jurisdiction, and
would exercise it.
1t is rumorcd that the question OF
power had hecn previously discussed
between the Governor and the mem
orialists, or counsel Tor the memorial
lists. BE this as it may, so Tar as the
law of the case is concerned, the
Commissioner were condemned with.
out hearing.
After the Governor had pronounced
his judgment upon the matter OF law,
the counsel for the memorialists in
atten dance declared, with usual SOL
emnity and impressiveness, their con-
currence in the Governor opinion. =
One OF the counsel (not then present
had few days before declared in
writing that no one Of common sense
could entertain different opinion. -
In the teeth of such high authority
we dare not trouble the public with
a lengthy argument on the subject
1t may not be Rniss, however, to re.
mind your readers that the opinion
expressed by the counsel last refer
red To. seems to rest chiefly ON th'
ground: Dismissal from Office is tn,
only punishment denounced by the
act for official misconduct. and in the
recess OF the Legislature the Cover.
nor alone can remove the Commits
sioners. Hence it is supposed tina,
he alone can determine whether they
have or have not been guilty Of oili
cial misconduct.
Now, every tyro knows that official
misconduct is an otfense at common
law, punishable by fine and imprison
ment. Hence, privation is an addi-
tional penalty--a further consequence
Of conviction which the Governor
may or may not impose at his discrc
tion. 1t would seem clear that O
conviction by the Governor, followed
up by dismissal from office, would
not be bar to second prosecution
for the same otiense before the Grim
nal Court, rnd therefore, upon til,
theory of the learned counsel, I'll,
Commissioner may be twice triet
and twice convicted for the same of
fense.
In the case of the Mayor, &C., VS.
Conn,.svi.le Railroad Company, il
appeared that the charter OF tn,
Company contained this clause: =
"And if the said Company shall n
any time misuse or abuse any OF til,
said privileges herein granted, th,
Legislature may resume, all and sir
sular, the rights and privileges here
10y granted to such corporation.
The Legislature OF Pennsylvania
{ did repeal the charter of the Compa
|, ny, but Judge Grier, sitting IN
Circuit Court of the United stucs
decided that the misuse or abuse al
legged could be established only l.,
o judicial inquiry. The cases ar,
somewhat diverse, in the letter t,
least. The case referred to involve,
t the right of the Legislature to forfei
a corporate franchise for misuse --th
, present case, the right OF the Gov
ernor to deprive an individual of hi
franchise to IN ollice for misconduct
! 1t would tend to edilicatiOn, never
lhelcss, il we could be favored wit
D., u peep into the brief used by couu
y sci for the Company in their argu
} mt nts before the Circuit Coult.
Let MS next suppose that the Gov
ernor, in the exercise OF his assumes
G jurisdiction, finds the Commissioner
Q guilty of official misconduct, declare
Their Offices vacant and annoints otl