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

7 teTmIue .
In this part Of il they failed, and ia another part
they didn't iah They failed 10 show the howness
The Governor thall have the power to remove
either Of the Directors upon proper notice and upon
written charges, they having opportunity OF be-
ing heard That is the statute. Tnat leaves it just
IS much il the dark the Constitution does as 10
WAC is TO hear the charges II they had meant that
| the Governor should hear them, why cldnt they
say so : Why didn's they say the Governor sha
hear the charges Why of course ii they had and
the Constitution hadn't granted the Governor that
power, it was no use for them 70 say So Tney left
it in the same party that the Constitution left il.
But outside Of that they did 20, and there is
law the statute books oi this State
BY which parties in Oihce have been
removed from Office, who we're not removable upon
accusation before the Court called the Senate. They
put it INTO effect, that 1t would continue 70
operate, 1t had before, b. changing the words
District Court 70 superior CJurSection ~ q the
Penal Code going u show tbat the matter IS criG--
inal matter by being put in tina. c De, and being
the definition Of crime. Section 772 Of the Pen.
Cole reads
"When an accusation ia writing, verified by til
oath Of any person, is presented 70 a Superior
Court alleging that any otheer within the Juriscic
ton Of the Court has been guilty ci chaigEnE ag1
collecting Illegal fees fer services rendered, he
rendered. in his Office or has refused or neglected
to perform the official duties pertaining to his Office,
the Court must cite the party charged 10 appear Ds
fore the Court at time not Jre than ten nor less
than five days from the time the ACCUSATION PIE
sented and on that day, or some other subsequent
day not more than twenty days from that on which
the accusation presented, must proceed to hear,
in q summary manner, the aeeus ton, and evidence
Of1red IN support Of the same, and the answer and
evidence offered by the party accused; ; and il, on
such hearing, II appears that the charge is sus-
tained the Court must enter decree that the party
accused be deprived OF his Office, and must enter
Judgment for $500 in favor OF the informer, and
/ such costs allowed in civil csses."
Now, there seems to be a clean, clear regulation
Of the entire matter. The decree is transmitted TO
the Governor, WHO removes. There is nothing re-
quiring the Governor to remove after hearing.
Ibis decree takes no Jurisdiction. but he can avail
himself Of the finding OF the Court, or decline to
avail himself Of it. 1t is suggested to me by my
colleague that it says be shall be removed Well,
! removed by whOmI By the removing power. Now
that law has always been the law. 1t became law
as early as 1853, There have been ever and ever so
many decisions upon it. IL was incorporated 10 the
Code by the Code Commissioners, and it seems to
contemplate all these things that procure safety to
all parties concerned And why! Putting the Wit
nesses uader oath so that ii they swear to what is
not true it is perjury leaving no doubt in their
minds about swearing to what they like, upon the
ground that the Court has no power to administer
an oath. The whole thing seems to be provided for
is judicial hearing and cleanup Of the entire
business according to the modes Of law. | claim
now that the Legislature provided that as means
what the Constitution seemed 10 suggest to be pro-
vided a means. But that not all. In the
Statutes oflS734 pags o. there is another section
found The Legislature has been constantly pro.
! viding means for removal from Office Of improper
persons upon charges, and here IS one Of the last
/ which they passed, III March, 1S74-and the law is
in force now because not in conflict with the Con-
stituti0n and because 1t hcs never been repealed
Any member Of any Board OF Directors Board
Of Commissioners, other Board OF officers, State
city, county or district. or other person who has
been elected appointed, or who shall hereafter be
elected or apponted to held control build or man
age. any pabc bui ding Of this State, Of any
county, CITY, city and county in tGis State or to
hold control, manage or dsburse any Of the public
funds Of this S.gte or of any county, city. city
and county in this St tie, any person acting BY,
through, or under the authority Of such Boagd of
Directors, Board Of Commissioners, or other p ard
Of ohicers, or other person as Aforesaid, or any
other officer in the Sttte, wbO shsli be gully Of a
wilful violation Of any Of the provisions Of the
statute under which he or they were or may be
hereafter elected appointed, any other statue
or statutes Of this State prescribing defining their
duties aud powers, or passed for their government
! and control, or who shall be guilty OF any other
wilfu violation OF official duty, shall be deprived OF
his Cfics and otherwise punished in accordance with
the provisions Of Section Of this Act"
Now, if that Act don't cover this case completely,
line after lice corresponding to line after inc it is
impossible 10 frame one that would. Section 2says
Whenever any complaint in riting duly veri-
fed b. the oath Of any complainant shall be presented
I to the District Court (superior Court alleging
that any Of the officers or other person referred TO in
Section Of this ACT, have, within the jurisdiction
Of this Court, been guilty of violation Of the pro-
visions OF said section, Of apy other statute or
statutes VI "a tst3, when 1se b-en or may here
after be passed for their government and control
! pr strbing or defining their duties and powers it
shall be the duty of said Court to ute the party or
parties charged TO appear before him certain
day, not more than ten nor less than five days from
the time when said complaint shall be presented, |
and on that day, or some Subsequent day not more
than twenty day from the time on which complaint
is presented, shall proceed to hear in a summary
manner the complaint aud evidence effsTed in sup
port Of the same, and the evidence offered by the
party par ties complained OF and if such hear
ing it shall appear that the char,e or charges con
tanned IN said complaint sustained the Court
shall enter a deorse that said party parties con
planned OF shall be deprived OF ms their Cffce or
OF the complainant, and for such costs as are al
| lowed in civil cases'
1t looks to me though the Legislature had made
clear the doubt that seems TO cling about the Con-
sdtution as TO- removals, by defining the Court and
procedure by which the removal should be found,
leaving it to the Executive TO exercise the power Of
| removal Besides the question all the time occurs
and constantly repeats itself when the power is
given TO the Courts plainly in other parts OF the
Constitution, if it WIS meant to be given to the
Executive ~ this part, why is the clearness and
directness and candor and honesty OF purpose not
| expressed, in the other case? Why should men
who were SO firm IN giving the powers to the ether
| departments hesitate and leave doubt over what
they meant by this, if they meant TO confer that
power
Now some Of the terms that occur here in this
part OF the Constitution oc UT also in Article VI
and there is 10 doubt in relation to it, because this
statute was p3s'ed Immediately subsequent
/ 10 the Constitution "JusEee5 of the Supreme
Court and Judges of the Superior Courts may be
removed by concurrent reso.ut!. Of tn b1usss OF
I the LEGISLATURE, adopted by twoihii DIS vote OF
each house. All other Judicial officers, except jus
tees of the Peace, may be removed by the Senate
ON thu recommendation Of the Governor but no
removal shall be made by vir;se Of this section un-
less the cau7s thereof be entered on the Journal,
nor unless the party complained OF has baen served
with copy OF The complaint against him and sh1N
have had au opportunity Of berg heard in his de-
feusa. on iho question Of removal She ayes and
noes shall be entered on the journal"
Now there shall have an opportunity Of being
heard means in the Senate. Il is taking about
the Ssna'e. The proceedings are in the Senate
Now there the same words u.ei that used in
this provision Of the Constitution bat thsy are
made clear b. the connection. The Leglsla-
tute has provided for the mode Of trial,
Z sgd the section itself makes Is clear
that toe Senate is 20 be the tribunal The Consti-
I tuition provides where it shall be, provides the
I tribunal, desguates the senate as the Court aud
the Legislatures provide the measures. If theJ
did not do t1at the Senate woud have to provide
for &c BY rules In the case # Hardy there were
. number Il rules adopted
Now why shouldn't tie Constitution in this case.
{ in Article XL II 1t meant the Governor 20 be the
Court make it equally clear that the Governor was
( 70 Try the case, ifit bad hssn intended
Then, again, that the legislature never intended
anything Of the SOFT IS apparent, because that very
same session of the Legislature they amended the
laws SO to conform TO the Constitution, and when
they defn the powers Of the Executive, they I'D
net include this power In Section SOS, the powers
OF the Gov, ruur IS included there, ard they did
not include this. Ii the Legisls5uge eTen ty
/ legislative construction Of the Consttaton, had
wished 70 place upon thai section CT the CsnS5Iu
ton fneir own views N IL, Lc place 10 eF mat con-
struction was in defuilg the pow5rs Z the Cos |
ern0r There Is not 4 theses etIons thai -
c1astrue 70 tand in the least 20 impy that te Gov
eruor Is understood BY the Legislature 70 have the
power 90 try As wei remove. hut, il may be !
asked il the Governor can remove without hear [
I iag, Why not with one The Governor can remove
some officers without a hexrirg, but the I
/ point is that where a hearing Is required /
where there is eontsststio shat eontestation the
+ Governor canuot hear. And Hhers the office IS |
conditioned for term and the removal conditioned
upon q e commission Of = crime, there Il contin
geBcy where il should not be vested n him. II !
there is contest made in regard 70 i he cannot
hear l. and for the reason that there are other
tribunals that any child knows about, tast hsve eN
I listed from the earliest tirnss. before the
State began to make these removals, and
were simply adopted from the common law, !
having 5een law as long the State has had bis
/ tory.
A great many questions might srise in this |
( pass upon. l caim that the ordinary Courts |
( are tue ones to try thSse cases sud tha. |
claim IS borne out by fair construction of the
Constitution. Sow Il Section 773 Of the Act Of |
F 1851 don't provide means q trial, then the |
Z Legislature Las nos provided any means Aud as
I the mans sre contingent upon the Legislatures
providing them, Il the legislature has failed 70 do
50, there sra no means, and must look tc the !
LEGISLATURE 70 provide means for use before
there can BE lTisi
Mr. FlourEoJ-Do understand yoa IS e1Itelding /
thai any Superior Cart Of the state Of California
has jurisdiction 70 hear and determine these speci-
fc1tilas
Mr. parvin-Ye=. sr: because i. hss beeu done