Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-05-22
rHE STATE PRISON CASES.

The State Prison Directors have filed
with the Governor their answer to the
charges preferred against them by the At
torney. General. The denials are both
general and specific, and they disclose very
fully the line of defense, which is justi6ca-
ton for every act admitted and denial of
wrong doing in any act charged. We have,
from the outset, urged the Governor to
give the Directors hearing, holding that
after having been charged by special
commission, a Senate committee, and
finally by the Senate itself, they are emit
tied to be heard. The Governor, finally,
on specific and altogether unnecessarily for
NAL charges, drawn with vast deal of ap-
parent profundity, but chiefly consisting of
words, resolved to investigate. The Gov
ernor not being versed in the law and fearing
legal complications, invited two Superior
Judges to sit with and advise him. One
declined, one accepted. The Constitution
| ARTICLE X declares that "the Governor
shall have power to remove either of the
Directors for misconduct, incompetenoy. or
neglect of duty, after an opportunity to
be heard upon written charges" The Di-
rectors now appear, and file with their an.
swer demurrer to the jurisdiction of the
Governor. They claim that he cannot
infringe upon the Judicial department of
the Government by exercising Judicial
powers in formal trial. That "oppor.
tunity to be heard means to be heard in
the proper tribunal. That the charges are
criminal charges, and that on all such the
defendant has the right of trial by jury.
Lastly, that as the Governor has the power
70 fill vacancies occasioned by removal, he
ia legally incompetent to try the parties
whose places he may vacate. We have
not believed that the action of the present
Administration in this matter was sincere.
The whole business appears as if it is being
managed to manufacture political capital.
| If sincerity had marked the proceedings
there would have been no such. legal
parade and semi judicial methods adopted.
The filing of the demurrer but confirms
our belief in the insincerity of the proceed.
ing. The constitutional provision is in.
tended to prevent abrupt removals, or for
political purposes the Governor having
general supervision, by his power to create
vacancies, over these servants Of the State,
the cause sufficient for removal must be
addressed TO the conscience of the execu-
tive. For the first time the question is
now raised as to the proper method to be
employed to ascertain whether there is
cause for removal. This suggests the
doubt ss to whether the Constitution, in
comforting the power on the Governor to
remove for cause, is self-executing so far
as the ascertainment of "cause is con.
cerned, or whether there should not be
legislation providing the methods for such
entertainments. This point will probably
be argued fully on the hearing of the de-
murrer. The entire proceeding, in the
shape it has now taken, is anomalous.
The whole business is now being tied up in
an inextricable tangle, and between the
lawyers and the Attorney General and the
Governor, the Directors will, we fear,
neither secure hearing nor the Senate
report be disproven or justified. We shall
be gratifsd to find hereafter that in this
Judgment we have erred.