St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-03-18
To D. O. Cameron, Superintendent of
Schools in Houston County, for
Habitual IntoxioatiOn.
A Document in Which the Executive
Maintains the Dignity of the
Public Schools.
What Is Malfeasance or Nonfeasance
in Office ga Knotty Legal
Point.
II There Was No Precedent Gov HuD-
bard Says He VIII Make
one.
WY. Cameron Removed.

from his official position. Some time ago
charges of malfeasance and non-feasance in
the discharge of his official duties because
of habitual drunkenness, were entered
against Mr.. Cameron by p. j. Smalley OF
the Caledonia Argus. Gov. Hubbard APP
pointed John McNelley, E. E. Stewart and
j. II. Ripe of Houston county commits
sion to investigate. They took vast
amount of testimony on the case and sub
mitted it to Gov. Hubbard. A hearing on
the testimony was had at the executive
rooms some weeks ago, Hon. {. h. Davis
and Somer 81 Torrison appearing for Cam
eron, and Mr.. Smalley for the prosecution.
After consideration of all the points, Gov.
Hubbard settled the case in the following
document:
TIE GOVERNORS DECISION.
The charges against Mr.. Cameron are for
maifCasance and nOnfeasance in the dis
charge of mis- official duties, owing to the inn
moderate use OF intoxicating liquors, and for
habigual drunkenness. They arc brought
under chapter ., General Statutes of Mime
sofa, 1873, rs amended by chapter u, Gen
eral Laws of 1881, the charge of habitual
drunkenness being based especially on the
authority OF chapter Il, General Laws OF
1873, which is also printed as section IL, OF
said chapter ., in The General Statutes OF
1873.
1t is objected. on the part of the respond
ent. that said chapter is unconstitutional,
and that, therefore, the governor has no power
of removal. Also that said chapter "a, is
not an amendment TO chapter aforesaid,
and that, therefore, the governor, whose
power OF removal comes only from said chap
yer 9, IS not authorized to remove from Office
for habitual drunkenness.
l shall hold chapter to be constitutional,
rs IL has uniformly been held by my prede-
ccSsors, including those learned lawyers,
Cows. Austin and Davis. l think clearly
that chapter u aforesaid is not an amend
mont OF chapter 9. II thence follows, not
that said chapter a IS not applicable TO re-
movals under chapter g, but that il is not eX-
clusively applicable thereto. II applies TO
every person holding Office under the const-
triton Oc laws Of the state, and to every au-
tnority which, b. law, mag remove any Of
them from office.
But the constitutionality of chapter "a may
be questioned. 1t says that 'habitual drunk
enncsS shall be good cause for removal from
Office" But the constitution of the state re-
StTictS the cause for which inferior officers
may Ue removed to "malfeaSance and nom
Geasanc - aud the legislature cannot en-
large the list OF causes. Neither, rs it APP
pears, can il determine or direct what shall
constitute malfeasance Or nonfcaSauce. that
being question of a judicial nature, proper
only for the authority which has the power of
removal.
] regard the statute in question as the ex-
preston Of the opinion Of the legislature,
presumably that of the people, on the sub
ject, suitable TO guide the discretion of the
proper authority, though Invalid to control or
limit il. 1t remains for the governor TO de-
eide, under said chapter 9, as amended,
whether the degree of indebtedness to immod-
crate drinking proved in any given case
amounts 10, or has resulted in, malfeasance
Or nonfeasance of official duties.
If, in regard to any officer included in sec
ton 3 of said chapter 8, as amended, the leg
islature had especially prescribed that the in
cumbent must during his term, have and
maintain condition of habitual sobriety,
should certainly think proved or admitted
drunkenness during his term would be non
feaSance in his official duty.
II, from the nature and functions OF an
Office and its relations to the public, il could
be inferred with equal certainty that a con-
duct and character ofhabitual sobrietV was a
duty thereof, then lapses from such conduct
would, i'm my opinion, be nonfeasance.
II such instances Of drunkenness occurred
at such times that the well-known immediate
or reactionary effects Of such iuduIgeuces
existed upon the officers intellect while he
was in the discharge of some of the details of
ms proper official service, l think the case
would be stronger.
If, owing to oYer-indulgence in liquor the
officer failed to be present when and where
such details of official service should be per-
formed, the case of nonfeasance might per-
maps be clearer, but to my mind. no stronger.
think no law requiring habits of sobriety
on the part Of a school superintendent could
add, in the Judgment OF candid minds. to the
obligations of that officer to keep sober
Argument and reflection will only deepen the
conviction.
If anything herein is an extension Of the
prccedcnis in the matter of Interpreting non
fcasance in the discharge OF Official duty,
understand that with changed conditions de-
partures from early precedents have often
become necessary. ! interpret chapter e as
the judgment Of the people that rs a general
rule habitual sobriety is part of the official
duty OF all officers in this state. ] under
stand that it rests with the authority which
can remove an ohcer to enforce that judy.
ment. The senate as
COURT Or IMPEACHMENT
in the case against Judge Cox, was in accord
with that judgment in deciding that, at le ast
in the case OF Judge of the district court
not only was habitual drunkenness an i'm.
peachable oEense, but that a Judge was i'm.
peacnable FOR being drunk while in the dis
charge OF his duty. If a precedent is want
ing to mold county officers TO account for
habits of inebriety during their terms, or for
instances of drunkenness while on duty, l in
tend. as TO county superintendent of schools
at least, to make one.
MIR. Cameron has been superintendent of
schools in Houston county for many years.
He is admitted, except for the fault ALLEGED
IN the present charges, to be q capable one
he is enthusiastic and efficient in educational
matters He is active in his own town in
favor of public order and temperance. and
OF the absolute exclusion therefrom of thu
sale or liquor. He appears to be fully sensi.
bic that his habit of occasional iuebriety is .
fault and disqualification. In 1882, before
his election, he assured friends who were
0lspleased with his habits, that he would re.
form them If reelected. He claims to have
done so to some extent but admits that he
did not reform them altogether. In 1884 he
gave further proof of his sense of the obi.
cation of sobriety upon superintendent by
plecging himself In writing to resign tbe
Office, if, being reelected, he should again
drink Intoxicating liquors.
Inc FORMAL charges in the case cover in
stances OF alleged intoxication prior to hi.
present term of office. But the considera
itude.
The testimony shows, indeed ii is hardly
disputed, that the respondents and is gener.
ally reputed to be man who drinks intoxicat.
ing liquors and occasionally drinks to excess.
III Is CLAIMED that he Is no worse in that re-
spect than he was before his last election
and that the people of the county have by
That election pronounced his habits no dis.
qualification. AS he himself promised
TO amend them, it is but lust
10 the voters to suppose that
they trusted that he would do so. But if q
reelection condones the offenses of the pasI
it is not license for misconduct in the fu.
ture.
Inc testimony convinces me that Mr.. Cam
eron has not only been pub.
hcly intoxicated since the first Mon
day in JAM, 1885, when his present
term began, but that he has been present
while under the influence of liquor at an 9 <.
animation of teachers ut Caledonia, in April
last, ana on some days at a teachers institute
in Caledonia in October last and that because
OF intoXication he has been absent
on some days and parts of
days at said teachers institute and
at an examination of teachers at Houston
in April, immediately following that at Gale
10 is, .,r,.l l. -.