The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1869-11-08

tllh case 10 btnte DtleNy our view OIL inc
law upon the subject OF tho removal o.
officers, n view which wc need hardly SOY
differs decidedly from that advocated,
will not say entertained, by the counse
Tor the plaintiffs. | quote the statute
ain casGs where there is not different
provision made by law, any person up
pointed TO my Office may be removed
thereirom by the person or persons hay
ing tho power Of appointment, for. any o.
the causes mentioned in the seventh sec
ton Of this chapter" Code Of West Va.
Oh. I, 10, p. Y. The causes mentioned
in 7, (relating to county oflcers) arc
misconduct in office, hAbitual or willGu
neglect Of duty, manifest incompetence
ITO discharge the duties Of the office, the
commission Of any oifense punishable
I."by. imprisonment or involving viola,
"uon OF his official oath, hAbitual intern
v perance or grossly immoral conduct
AS we shall see, there ia no "ditferentlpro,
vision made by law" for the removal Of
the Superintendent Of the Cumberland
Road. The provisions for the removal OIL
county officers were very different in Vir'
gina from those Of our statute. In that
State they could be removed only by
indictment for, and conviction Of, malfeaS'
ance, misieaSance or neglect. That was
o constitutional provision. The superin-
tendent was made removable by the board,
at its pleasure, under the Virginia statute.
The reason was that as the board had no
power to remove for cause, it would other.
wise be put TO the necessity Of indictiug
and ConVicting him before q court, in or
der TO remove him. That reason ceaSes
under our statute. The difference between
the statutes Of the two states is explained
by reference totheir constitutions, and we
at the same time see another reason why
the superintendent is not under our law
made removable at the pleasure Of the
board. "All officers elected or appointed
under this constitution may be removed
from office for misconduct, incompetence,
neglect Of duty, or other causes, in such
manner US may be prescrib ed by general
tdIcs.n Const. W. Va, Art. III, 3 O.
"The legislature in cases not provided for
in this constitution shall prescribe by gene.
raj td1cs, the terms Of Office, powers, du.
ties and compensation Of oil public officers
and agents, and the manner in which
they shall be elected, appointed, and
remouei." Same, ! 8. The removal
must be according to general laws, and
such have been enacted in Oh. 7 Of the
Code to meet this constitutional require.
ment.
The bubble that the law has not said
that officers shall not beremoyed for other
causes ayails nothing hero, the legal
maxim 'expressio unius exclusio ate.
RUS being especially applicable TO the
construction Of such o statute as this.
The Legislature used the the words it did,
with purpose, and that purpose doubt.
less was TO prevent just such baseless and
frivolous charges as have for weeks occu.
pied tho attention of this honorable
board: this clause was enacted expressly
TINT it might stand in the road Of disap.
pointed otfiee.seekers; Of those who bring
forward their private quarrels for public
redress, and Of those who spend long
professional" lives in trying to get
themselves into the superintendency Of
the Cumberland Road by getting other
people out. l need not have said this
much for the benefit Of the learned counsel
for tho plaintiff. He saw it long since,
and hence his anxiety to set up some other
rule for your guidance than that set up by
the law. No other rulo could be worse
for him. His facts don't fit the law as it
is and he is driven to the necessity Of
hunting some new law to fit his facts.
To proceed: By chapter Sc, section 4,
page 4l4, Of tho Code Of West Virginia,
the board Of public works is authorized
to appoint q superintendent. Whatever
may be the result of the inquiry as to
whether other parts Of the chapter of the
Code OF Virginia are repealed or not,
there can be no question that the provi.
sion Tor the appointment and removal Of
the Superintendent in the old Code is re.
pealed, because the subject is fully pro.
vided for in the new Code. But the
legislature evidently intended to repeal
the chapter, as they have gathered into
section 4 Of chapter SO Of the new Code
the substance Of the several sections Of
the old law relating to the Superintendent
The only reason suggested why this
officer should be treated differently from
others is that his term is indefinite. But
what authority is there for the position
that IN indefinite term Of Office takes
away from its holder the benefits, or ex.
empts him from the liabilities, prescribed
by the law with respect to others. The
term Of tho public printer has, until
April l, 1869, always been indefinite. It
was indefinite rs to the beginning Of the
term, for the law did not prescribe the
time he should 60 into office, or limit the
time for giving bond and otherwise quail.
flying. 1t left all to his own choice. If
he happened to be reelected, he might
go on without any qualification at all.
Nothing could be more indefinite. Yet
the gentleman, if called on to defend the
public printer against proceedings for his
removal, would not have thought him en-.
tirely beyond the protection Of the law,
because his term was indefinite. So with
several other officers. The term Of any
officer becomes indefinite should his sue.
cessor fail to qualify before the expiration
Of his term, as fixed by law. ] do not
WIou w 10 uuAeLptoou no CUuLeHuluk tuht
trial such as thisis in oil cases necessary.
When the causes Of removal occur within
the knowledge Of the appointing power
itself, then no inquiry into the facts is
requisite. Those appointing may be
judges, jury, and witnesses, and from
their decision, as from the decision OF
this board, there may be no appeal, but
they are none the less bound by the law,
nay, in such q case, they are all the more
bound in honor and conscience by its
letter and spirit. .lr..
If Governor Stanton's argument on this
point proves anything, it proves too much
for him. If the provisions Of the chapter
on the removal Of officers do not apply To
this case, then there is no statutory pro.
vision for the removal Of the Superiu.
tendent Of the Cumberland Road, and he
can only be removed by the common law
method Of Indictment and conviction
thereon, before court Of competent au.
thority. e
take it, then, Mr.. Ferrel must DO &C.
cused Of an otFense known To the law.
His accusers mnst further set forth the
particular instance Of the commission Of
the oHfense charged, must specify the par.
ticn1ar CalAu in which ha hoa 0ivan oonuo