Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-06-11


successful administration Of the personal
qualifications OF the one who carries it
out; of his adap.ability, his sympathy,
his high moral character, his love for men,
and other exalted personal qualities.
Coupled with these is the power to ap-
point and discharge subordinates, and thus
draw about him an efficient corps OF as
sistants, responsible to him aud in harmony
with his endeavors. In this personality,
this individuality of their administrators
then, the beat penal systems have their
foundations.
Such system is outlined by the Con.
stitution of California for our prisons, and
hence it is provided that the Wardens shall
be secure in their right to discharge "at
pleasure" which is equivalent to saying
without expressed reason" From these
statements it must be clear to the reader
that the trainers of our Constitution sought
to completely eliminate all political in.
fuences from prison management. That
was the theme of their legislation, and It
must be considered from that point OF view.
But let US see how far this has been re-
garded. When the Directors were ap-
pointed by the Governor and confirmed by
the Senate, theiI first act was character.
lied by Algrant disregard of the com.
mAnds Of the organic instrument-they
denied to the Wardens the privilege of
appointing their subordinates, and they
proceeded to discharge all Democrats,
whatever their experience in the service or
their fitness. This was striking at the
very heart of the whole system They
acted in manner that destroyed the inde-
tendency of the Warden, and deprived at
least portion of his appointments of the
character Of personal freedom of choice.
In brief, they set up a partisan manage.
ment, and discharged men for political
reasons only, and which would have justi-
fed change of administration and com.
plete change Of all under them.
Bat the constitutional provision quoted
can only be viewed as a limitation on what
would otherwise be the arbitrary power of
the Governor to remove Directors. It sets
up barrier in the interest of a non. politi-
cal system, a system unquestionably best
for the State and its prisoners. This bar
rier requires the fo-mality and solemnity
of written charges, by inference to be at.
tested by the signature of come responsible
party, and that there shall follow hear
ing. For what? Not to Try the Directors
on any criminal charges not to make judi
cial judgments against them; not by a
method infringing upon the Judicial sys-
TEN; not by procedure antagonistic to any
OF the forms Of a republican government;
,, but simply by inquiry instituted and con-
Quoted by the Governor, to inform the ex.
ecutive conscience. This is the simple,
commonsense view of the matter 1t is in
accord with the spirit of the Constitution,
and we venture to say that it is the law of
the case, although very extended argu-
ments to the contrary have been advanced.
This proceeding of inquiry, then, must
be before and by the Governor, who alone
il to be instructed as to the facts, and
whose judgment alone is TO be influenced,
and ia intended to instruct and direct the
discretionary power lodged with the Ex-
ecutive. What does the Constitution re.
quire Nothing more than the making OF
charges, and that the Directors shall enjoy
the right to be heard in response before the
Executive OF the State, to whom alone the
whole matter of removal is committed.
To deny the jurisdiction of the Executive,
then, amounts to denial of his power to
remove to deny him jurisdiction On the
ground that in informing his conscience he
is exercising Judicial functions, appears to
the layman little less than childish, and
we apprehend that the Supreme Court, if
the application for writ of prohibition to-
day is contested, will sustain this practical
view of it-thst the constitutional pro.
power Of removal, has relation to the ap-
pointing power, and that without it there
would be no check upon arbitrary political
| action by Governor. Without it Gov
ernor could, for no other than political
eause, remove Directors, and they work
the ousting of the Warden, and by such
devices a. have heretofore been employed
the removal Of every subordinate be &C
cOmplished for purely political reasons, and
thus the whole system be placed at the po
litieal mercy of the Executive and its eff
cheney completely wrecked.
But suppose it shall be determined that
the Governor has not power to hear and
determine complaints of official miscon-
duct against the Directors then, as we
| have intimated, he has in fact no power of
removal at all. To illustrate, suppose
Governor Stoneuan should attempt to re-
move these Directors without hearing
them; they could plead their constitu-
tional right to be presented by written
charges, and to be heard thereon. But the
Governor does receive charges, does cite
the Directors to respond, and appoints to
them hearing, and 10 they deny his
right 10 try them, to hold the hearing,
etc. He cannot remove them without
charges being preferred as provided by the
Constitution, and the Directors row stand
up and declare that he cannot remove
them when charges have been preferred.
The logic Of this is, that whatever the Elk.
ecu.ive may do. they are beyond Guberna-
| t0rial interference.
! A esyTIzNAS favorable to the view that science
could asesd Z remedy for the flow OF hydraulic
! - - = L L.