Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-06-11
THE PRISON DIRECTORS POWER OF
THE GOVERNOR TO REMOVE.

On Saturday we spoke briefly Of the
deei,ion of the Governor upon the demur-
rer to bis Jurisdiction in the case of the
charges sgAinss some of the State Prison
Directors as not unexpected We now APP
proach more studied examination of the
question, for it is essential that there
should be perfect olearness of comprehen.
sion of the whole matter by the public,
and that TO legal en.anglements and sophis-
tries shall be permitted to befog and con-
fuse the question. Prior to the argument
before the Governor, we had sketched the
history of the matter, the examination
into the affairs Of the State prisons by u
special commission and its report. the in
quiry by a legi-lative committee and its
repors, aud the adoption of the latter re-
port by the State Senate, which amounted
TO sn indictment OF the Directors and
formed the groundwork for executive in
quiry under given article of the Cons.itu-
tiou.
The article in question provides that
"the Governor shall have the power to re-
move either of the Directors for mscon.
duct, incOmpetenoy, or neglect of duty
after an opportunity to be heard upon writ
ten charges. Upon the construction OF
these quoted words have been expended
lAbored and elaborated arguments by skilled
attorneys, with the result of decision by
the Executive, that he has power to hear
the complaint laid by the Attorney Gen.
ersl before him against the Directors, with
view to their removal, if the charges are
sustained These arguments We have care
fully examined, end the public has been
afforded opportunity 20 read them in full
BY publication in our columns.
The article ia the new Constitution re.
ferred to was copied from SERIES of ress-
lu,ions passed by the State Prison Reform
Association of New York in the year 1877.
TIE central idea was to remove prison ad-
ministrssion from the mutations, vicissi-
sndes and corrup.ing influences of partisan
politics. All well,informed penologista ars
aware OF tie fact that the system OF prison
control has less to do with saccsss IN a re.
formatory and corrective ssnse. than the
administration of the system by those
intsusted with i, for. SIS IS obvious, good
system poorly ADMINISTERED might be less
reform tory than = less desirable system
well administered. The one desideratum
in PRISM reform is the enforcement of
prison patronage from the parry spoils sys-
tenn, aud a. this attainment the Conssitu-
ton of California has aimed. 1t Outlines
a penal system-in briei, that the Prison
Directors are TO be appointed by the
Executive with the advice and consent Of
the Senate; they sre TO serve without pay /;
shey are to be reimbursed for amounts dis
bursed by them in the performance of the
duties Of their offices they are to appoint
the Wsrdens and clerks of the prisons, and
these are to hold Office during good be-
hxvior-that il, the Directors may remove
Warden. but for csuse only or. as the
Constitution expresses it. for "incompe-
tency or neglect of duty" TIE Warden
appoints all the other Offices and employees
of prison. and they are removable IS.
his pleasure.
New the Governor is given power to re-
moss Directors frCn TIE Board. but fer
calse only, as has been shown, aud thus it
is clear that the system is made dependent
for its success upon the skin, experiences
aad administrative ability Ct the Warden,
for bss officer Is tho keystone Of the syS.
ten, s1d is made sueh, as already re-
msrksd, npon tie principle spprcvsi BY