Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-05-18
SHANAHAN's PROTEST.
His Reasons for Withdrawing From the
State Prison Investigation.

HIS Reasons Tor WlthdraWing From the
State Prison Investigation.
When T. w. H. Shanahan, one of the
counsel appointed by the Governor to rep
resent the people in the State Prison in
vestigation, decided to withdraw, he re-
quested permission to file a protest but
was not permitted to do so. He has. there
fore, given to the press the protest he de-
sired to file, which is as follows:
''In the matter of the State Prison in.
vestigation, the undersigned, of counsel
for the people, hereby enters his protest
against the action of the senior attorney
for The people and the ruling of the Gov
ernor, the one for requesting and the other
for ordering the said investigation to pro-
coed without the fling of written charges,
and upon basis that must necessarily be
barren of results and fail of any remedial
measure, no matter what may be proved
against the management of the prisons.
Under the Constitution of this State the
State Prison Directors have the sole power
10 appoint the Warden, whom they NAV
remove for misconduct, Incompetence or
neglect of duty. The Governor has no
power to remove the Warden, even though
he be incompetent, neglected. of duty or
corrupt, except indirectly through the Di-
rectors. But the Constitution empowers
the Governor to remove the Directors for
misconduct, incompetency or neglect OF
duty, after an opportunity TO be heard
upon written charges
In this case, as shown by the findings
from the evidence taken before the WAYS
and Means Committee of the Assembly of
the Twenty-eighth~ (ast) session of the
Legislature, the Directors have violated the
law in maintaining and keeping in Office
Warden who has been guilty of miscon-
duct and neglect of duty, if not cor upt
practices; and the said evidence We uld
warrant the preferring of charges aga nst
the Directors themselves
a" But notwithstanding the fact that the
Directors cannot be removed except by fl
ing written charges land the Warden can
be reached only through the Directors) the
senior attorney holds that he will not pre-
fer written charges, and that this inyesti.
cation before your Excellency is only to
determine whether charges should be pre-
ferred or not. From which view dissent,
holding on my part, that such an investi.
CATION would not go beyond the end that
was reached when the Ways and Means
Committee reported its findings in the same
matter.
las to what action should be taken at
this time the Stoneman investigation frlr-
nishes precedent that should govern. In
that case there had been an Investigation
of prison affairs at the hands of the Senate
Committee on State Prisons. This COM
mittee had reported series of findings SIM
liar to those reported by the Ways and
Means Committee. Attorney General Mar
shall and George Flournoy for the people.
preferred written charges against the Prison
Directors. which were based on the report
of the Senate Committee Upon those
charges Governor Stoneman investigated
the prison management and removed four
of the Directors. and through that means,
Warden Ames. AS Mr.. Wilson and N.Y.
self are in like position 10 that occupied
y Messrs. Marshall and FIournoy AT the
time they preferred written charges. hold
that it is our duty to adopt the line of action
carried out by them.
In this Mr.. Wilson disagrees with me.
and is sustained by your Excellency. And
feeling that no good can come to either the
prisons or the people of the State from an
investigation on the method of procedure
suggested by my senior and approved by
your Exceiiency | herewith enter my pro-
test and beg to retire from the CASE