Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-06-06

sponse to that polite suggestion desire to say tha
this Court can do nothing whatever, whatever ii
Judgment may finally be, that can be more sever
or conclusive upo1 the gentlemen chsrged here II
this case than was the published and formal repor
OF the committee appointed TO investigate thei
management OF the prisons OF California under thl
last administration. That is merely in reply Il
their polite suggestion. l might also inquire as K
whether, in the composition of this directory, any
regard was had to the demands and interests O
the then minority Of the people OF this State
speak OF this thing, not matter OF argunlent
but as couple OF conclusive propositions upon tn:
suggestions very politely intmated by counsel, thai
this Court, IS now constituted, might violate som,
| Of the great principles OF law which they haC
learned from the books because Of political tenden
eies
say Inever regarded this ss serious proposition
l enjoyed the argument OF counsel, but l might e;
well have heard disquisition upon the principles
| King John and the BaTons. OF course # the last
Constitution had not been enacted and become tbs
law, he supreme law of the land, the gument
would have had some foTee-some efficiency, and
some direct application TO the question here. ad
nit that this Court is new, unheard of-thas is al
true but the people had right TO create it They
had right to confer upon the Governor the power
! 70 eetermine this matter, and l. seems that they
I did il.
Now, the first section OF the third article of the
Constitution says: Ihe powers Of the Government
ot the State 0f California shalt he divided into thres
| separate depa.tuents-the Legislative, the Exeea-
| tive ami the Judicial and no person charged with
! the exercise of powers properly belonging to one
J
appertaining 10 either OF the others
| Now, if it hal stopped there, then there
would not have been good and tsolid argument
against the provisions of Article 10, but thare
would Fave been some ground for controversy.
But instead of stopping there, it says except as in
| this Constitution expressly directed permitted. -
Now, if there be uything in this Constitution di-
recting permitting or authorizing any one de.
partmeut Of the Government TO exercise what prop
ery and ordinarily belongs TO another, am not IA
mar with it, except it be embraced in the last
| part of Section TO- II there be anything else in
this whole Constitution, anything snywnere that
authorizes the Judicial power to be
exercised by any other department except as
stated in Article am not familiar with it. But
the Legislature was not content with that-not con-
tent VITA special designation of the powers of the
Executive upon this subject because the power in
wolves duty but in their general distribution OF
| powers, knowing what the people had dcue or in
tended to do in thai same constitutional body they
provided expressly that there should te question
| Of controversy as TO what any general clause might
mean or any special clause they put in the eXcep-
| tion clearly and squarey. And why Because it
| might be imagined that there had been a disturb
! ance Of powers? No But because they deliberately
| intended that there should be- That is what it
| means. There is no chance to get cut Of the pro-
position. Therefore, it is csrtsin that the Constitu
tional Convention, at the time that they enacted
Section l OF Article Ill, had ore exceptions
10 the general rule in view. That un
derstoot. They provided the exception. |
have net found any exception bat this
InSre may DC z q .eDt buL lu1L uOSS Lou
l fl none, except that in Article l. of Section TO-
That article relates to STATE institutions and pub
lie buildings, There is taat clause which is ir-
velved in this controversy The Governor shall
have TIE power and the co1ferring Of the power
involves duty" shall have ths power to remove
either Of the Directors "-ior what? "For niseon-
duct, ilcompetency neglect of GDty, after op
portunty to he heard upcn written charges" Eo@
my propos tOn-not simply a lawyer, but 4
man of common seuse-is this That the power to
hear always carries with it the power to determine
and that the power to determine necessarily IN
wolves tie power to hear any controversy. There
is no way Of separating the propositions 1t is
impractic2be. | listened to the long argument
about the statute of 1873 which has reference
whatever TO the Constituton-aboul the power OF
the Superior Court to hear charges Of this character
which were in the nature OF criminal charges.
You can't try crime without a jury. 1t
is not an equity case at all. 1t was
admitted by counsel that no jury could be brought
in this matter When it was argued SO earnedly
and at such length that the Superior Court the
one having Jurisdiction here, desired to ask
ssl ques ion, which was this is it possible that
any Superior Court in the State of California can
try any man for incompstency? Is it possible, ex-
cept TO try him to his mental ability todeteTmne
whether he shall be deprived of the power to man
age his own business to whether he shall be sent
to the ssylum We DO not charge incompetency
here but that res not matter-it is the power.
Suppose We did charge itt Suppose We said that
they incompetent, thst docs not change the
propositiOn and any reasonable man, can any
LAWYER say that cuy Court in this State can try a
man for incompetency in any manner or IN any
| forn2 II answers the whole argument il il We're
/ needful to answer.
"Tne Governor shall have the power y It is no5
conferred by the Legislature; thsy could not coGfer
it but the people in their Constitutional CoBven-
ti0n said we intend to have some way Of managing
these Directors Of the state Prison. We have given
them ten years of service, and they must be
aged in way not politically, not for party pur
poses, bnt ii they have been incompetent, if they
have been guilty of neglect Of duty, if they have
| g
have the power 80 remove them How does he as
certain whether thoy have been guilty Of these
things or not Who are those charges fled
with What Court Of this State could l. repre-
senting the Attorney General, bring these charges
before? What C04st would listen 20 me have
heard the gGment and have seen it in tne press
that there proposition to transfer this matter
to the Court. say there is Court in this State
that could accept the jurisdiction by any sort of
agreement, or render any kind of q decree Where
will the charges be filed Before the Superior
Court OF the city and county CT San Francisco,
SolRno, or where Are the charges sufficient
Who is to pass upon that proposition? Who Is to
decide whether the charges il true, sufficient
The Coutt What Court, and where does it get its
power But they hear it, say counsel. We go be-
fore Court with these charges in this form, any
other FORM and it is said in this argument that the
Court shall do what Shall hear it. Anything
else 4! No that is ali it can do What decree can
it reader? What disposition can it make upon the
hearing of that2 Is it pretended that any
Court can decree this removLl? Is it pretended
that Court say whether or not they have been
guilty of these things? Is it Court with jury
without Jury? Suppose the Court says they are
guilty or not guilty. how does il address itself to the
Executive under this clause Is it in the nature of
an instruction to hims Is he to obey the sugges
ton Of the Court, or is he to hear it himseft The
proposition and the whole arg cment involves a de-
gree of absurdity 1t is simply absurd, and that is
all there is IN it. OF coCrse this is new proceed
! lug OF course this Commission has to
have its rules. The Supreme Court make their
| NAL rleGi zrttiaz
| Senate provides set of rules ANY Court, in
der to hear and determine matter, must provide
some system OF procedure. The Legislature has not
s3i1 that the Court sh j. sit IN this room, or on
| what particular day. or what the complaint shall
cont in or anything Of that sort, nor it need
full that they should do so. They might very we'll
have undert ken to provide some sort o. directions
| as to the time and place OF hearing, and might
| have provided some mcde OF procedure that would
| have been entirely consistent. They simply say
what the Constitution (Ssetion ii OF the act OF
| 1Ss). They did not c9nfer that power That does
not come from the Legislature at all. They had no
rig at To confer il. They recte the constitutional
provisioo aud they evidently understood it be-
log 90 copl te in itself to be entirely independ
ent Of any further action by the Legislature. fhey
! said upon proper notice Who knows what proper
notice Is Who says what proper notice is Proper
notice means fair reasonable notice. The whole object
is to have reasonable and fair and impartial hear
ing That Is ell the Constitution clntemplates l.
SAYS they shall he served with copies Of the written
| eharrss TIE copies have been served, and they
have been answered here. But they are 10 have an
opportunity to be heard. Where The char es
were fled with the Executive. The copies were
served through the power given by the Constitution
/ by the Executive. And somebody else 10 hear
! it. Hear what? Hear whether these things are
tue o. not aud after spending much time 10 decide
whether true or not, an utter incapscity 70 make
anY ruling upon it, whatever the opinion If the
Court may tie Is it possible t7at counsel arc serl-
Gus IN their argument that Court can exist with
| ous the pow to render Judgment? Is that seri
ouslg and earnestly argued that there is such a
| thing Court that csnnot render judgment or
| decree! Inever heard OF is before. That u newer
than this constitutional pro 5ison than any
thing ever heard Of, that it Is possible fl Court
/ to have power to hear case bus no power
/ to make decree Of its own judgment, or dispose
Of it in aus way, find the facts or any thing about
it. What Court and the fact that a, Il. Chap
man vas incompetent, except ia a processing for
iuHacy! Where IS the power for any Court 10 ex-
anime into the question Of the competency CT a
/ public officer JndeT laws, except this Court
upon this particular investigation You 90 TO the
superior Court OF Sacramento county and
| ask Judge Armstrong or Judge McFar-
land to pass UPON the proposition that
A. II. Chapman is incompetent a. Director for the
State Prison. and we invited practically 10 do
th1t thing in this argument invited throush the
press aso actually invited to do that sort Of thing,
! to go before Superior Court and ask the Court,
because It does not matter whether have charged
incompetencT or not, TO the framework Of the
/ this cause OF the Constitution, and We
are deliberately told that we have the
poSer; not only that, but that 1t il the
only possible thing can do under the eircum-
Stances, 70 20 and ask the Superior Csr. CT SasTa-
msnto or some other ,untT, whether Joha Smith 10
incompetent - perform official duties, Gnd after
that what IS the result No decree rendered, 10
Init