Sacramento daily record-union., 1883-09-15
GOVERNORS DECISION
IN THE INVESTIGATION OF TIE STATE
PRISON DIRECTORS.
Full Text of the Governors Findings and
Conclusions-Pour Directors Re-
moved-New Appoiutees.

The Governor yesterday filed his finding
and conclusions in the matter of the investi
CATION of the State Prison Directors, and tb
same was issued simultaneously from tn
State Printing Office, in pamphlet form
making ten pages. Following is the repor
in full, which concludes with the Executiv
action of removal from Office:
The People us. State Prison DirectorS.-Thi
investigation ended and was submitted on tn
18th of August, after many protracted ses
sions, running through more than three
months. The length of time consumed be
tween the date OF the fling of the charge anC
Specifications and the termination of thl
trial, was great; but in my opinion none tot
great when we come to consider the circum
stances surrounding the case. The provision
of the Constitution under which the investi
CATION was held is new. There are no pre-
cedents in this or any of the other States, Il
my knowledge. lt ia in reality q judicia
duty imposed upon the Executive, and thai
without a procedure furnished by the law
making power Of the State. The number o.
specifications, the range Of the examination
the large amount OF documentary evidence
the number OF witnesses, and the difficulty
of procuring prompt attendance, all contrib
uted to produce delay and lengthen the ex
animation. OF necessity the printing of the
testimony, the preparation Of counsel for the
argument, and the time required in the argu
ment, all added to the time consumed, and
protrscted the examination far beyond the
limit supposed to be necessary at the com.
mencement of the investigation.
kaa L. II
this investigation, to ascertain the facts
and to accomplish that object, it was neces.
ssry to give every facility to both parties to
produce their evidence. For the purpose OF
giving increased facilities for the production
of testimony, / held session of nearly one
week at San Quentin Prison, and whilst
there made personal inspection of the mode
of conducting the different branches of labor
or business The argument Of counsel was
protracted and exhaustive, consuming nearly
two weeks.
The proceeding was commenced under and
by authority of the last clause of Section
of Article Y. of our Constitution. Il reads
as follows: 1.-THE Governor shall have the
power to remove either of the Directors for
misconduct. incompetency or neglect of duty,
after an opportunity to be heard upon writ
ten charges"
The only statute on the subject is Section
IA of the Act of April Is, 1880, which reads
as follows "Section IA. The Governor
shall have the power to remove either of the
Directors for misconduct, incompetency or
neglect of duty, upon proper notice to him
or them, accompanied by copies of written
charges, he or they having an opportunity to
be heard thereon"
1t will be seen that the statute is but little
more comprehensive than the clause of the
Constitution quoted. The only material diff
ference is that the statute requires proper
notice in addition to the requirements of the
clause of the Constitution. There being no
procedure for the guidance of the Governor
in the performance of this most delicate
duty, it was thought best to supply the de-
feet in the law by the adoption of rules to
govern and control the investigation. The
following rules were adopted, which rules are
hereto annexed, marked Exhibit A."
After all preliminary questions were set
tied, the taking of testimony began on the
18th of June. During the progress of the
examination seven new specifications were
added, and answers fled thereto. The tes.i-
mony is very voluminous, making 365 pages
of printed matter, besides many pages of
books and other written and printed matter
not recorded at large in the record of the
trial. At an early stage of this proceeding.
upon preliminary questions raised and argued
by counsel, had occasion to lay down the
rules, scope, perview, snd spirit that should
govern and control examinations of this
character, and also to point out the distin-
gushing features between this and other
legal methods provided by our Constitution
and laws for the removal of untaithful
officers.
This case is not analogous to the proceed.
ing provided for in Article w., Sections II
and 1S, of our Constitution, which is q pro-
ceeding by impeachment. In that case
charges must be formulated by the Assembly
and transmitted to the Senate, and trial
had before the Senate as a Court of Impeach.
ment. 1t is not similar to the proceeding
provided for in Article VI, Section TO- for
the removal of all unfaithful Judge, which is
by concurrent resolution adopted by two
thirds of sll the members of the Legislature
elected to each house. In this class Of cases
there need be no charge preferred In the As
sembly and transmitted to the Senate, as in
cases of impeachment. The cause alleged is
spread upon the journal copy of the COM
plant against the accused must be served,
and he have an opportunity TO be heard in
his defense. The statute lSectien 772 of the
Penal Code). in pursuance of the last clause
in Section IS of Article ". of our Constitu-
tion, provides for still another method TO.
removal, and gives jurisdiction to the Su-
perior Court to try and determine the same,
and q procedure for the removal OF county
and township officers
The case under consideration differs ma
terially in the forum, method, and procedure
from the examples above cited. Each method
is expected to reach the same end, under like
circumstances that is, remove unfaithful
officers, and refuse to disturb officers who
have faithfully performed their duty. Coun-
sell for respondents directed o considerable
portion of their argument and read authori-
ties in many Impeachment trials to establish
the proposition that as there is not com
plete penal offense set forth in the charge and
specifications, therefore there is no ground for
q removal, supposing the same to have been
fully proven. The arguments and authorities
being inapplicable to this case, as has been
shown, it is not necessary to pursue the sub.
ject further.
This proceeding is intended as limitation
upon the absolute right of removal, which
exists and has always existed in the Presi.
dent Of the United States and the Governors
of the different States, and as now exists in the
Executive of this State, as regards several
officers of different characters and grades.
The Constitutional Convention that framed
our organic law endeavored to take the man.
aBcLocnt VI tuo Osat0 IlnOub Oub VI party
politics, by the creation of Board Of five
Prison Director, with terms ranging from
two to ten years. OF the first appointees
the term Of one should expire every two
years. And in turn their places should be
filed in like manner by appointees who
should hold office for ten years.
If the theory contemplated by the frameri
Of the Constitution had been carried out by
the last administration. there is little doubt
that success would have followed the inaugu
ration of the new system. But instead Of I
| mixed Commission, outside and above party
politics, the then Executive appointed five
Directors belonging to the same politica
| party with himself. These Directors pro
ceeding to organize the new sy stem, followed
! the example set in their own appointments
| and selected Wardens and clerks belonging t,
the same political party with themselves
| The Wardens could not be expected to ignor
these examples. Thus we see the Constitu
tional Convention deliberately condemninI
| the theory upon which the State Prisons ha,
been managed for years and the administra
ton whose duty it was to heed and obey tn
mandate Of the people expressed in the Con
stitution, as deliberately ignoring it, and rele
| eating these institutions into the old and ie
| uored system and without anv of the fay