St. Paul daily globe., 1892-06-23
4 SQUARE KNOCKOUT
The Supreme Court Files an
Order in the Peterson
Case,
BY Which the Hennepln
County Treasurer Is Qui-
city Retired.
Batch OF Othsr Important
Cases Decided Passed on
by Judges,
Which Litigants and Law
yers Will Find interest
ing Reading.

The supreme c0urts yesterday dis
posed of the folio wing appeal: State OF
Minnesota, eX .e.., Moses L. Clapp.
Attorney General. relator. ". Hans .
Peterson respondent. Tie opinion is
filed by Judge Mitchell, and SETS forth:
The respondent, by his demurrer to the
information, assails the constitutional
ity of Ch. los, Laws 1881. providing for
the suspension and removal of county
treasurerS, by the governor, for mai
feasance or nonleasance in office. His
contention is that the power OF removal
from Office is judicial in its nature and
can be exercised only by the judicial
tribunals of the state, and that, under
the constitution, the legislature Las no
authority 10 provide tor the removal
CT a county treasurer except
. by judicial proceedings in court.
Whether the power OF removal
from Office fer official misconduct
is judicial in lis nature is Il question
that has been Iauch discussed and upon
which the courts in this country are not
agreed. Some hold the affirmative.
seeming to proceed upon the ground
that ali incumbent has property in his
office OF which he cannot be deprived
without the judgment OF 4 court ard
after due hearing. This view is, of
course. ia accordance With the doctrine
of common law which regarded ali Office
dS a herrIitament. See State vs.. Pritcn-
ard, 36 \. J. law lOl; Dul!am vs.. Will
son, 53 Mich. 392. Other authorities
hold that the power OF removal from
Office is administrative and not judicial.
These proceed upon The theory that
public Office is public trust and
not private property; that the
right to exercise 1t Is not
based upon any contract or grant,
but that the office is conferred upon the
incumbent as public agent, to be eXer-
cised for the benefit of the public. In
view OF the express provisions of the
constitution of the state, IL is unneceS
Sary to determine which of these doc
trines Is correct. 1t may be conceded.
fer the purposes of this case, that the
power OF removal from Office is judicial,
and that an incumbent cannot be re-
moved except after notice and a hear
ing.
Article IS of the constitution, after
providing III section for the removal
of state officers and judges of the SUI
preme and district courts by impeach-
ment. then provides in section , that
|lilt legislature Ol luS STATE IndN pro-
vide for the removal of inferior officers
from office for maifeasance or
nonfeasance in the performance
OF their duties. The power thus
conferred Is plenary and confers au-
thority upon The legislature TO vest the
power OF removal, and the determina-
ton OF the question whether cause for
removal exists, in any Department. of the
government or in an officer or official
body it may deem eXpedient. The syl-
labus flied reads:
Chap. los, Laws 1881, providing for the
suspension or removal of county treas
urerS for malfeaSance Or nonteaSance of
office is valid. Under section 2, article
Is of the constitution. the legislature
has authority to vest the power of re-
moving inferior officers i'll the governors.
The power 10 remove includes the
power Of temporary suspension pending
the trial of the officer. An order of
suspension only takes effect and be-
comes operative when issued and served.
The mere fact that the governor per-
formed the manual act of signing it
outside the state will not render it void.
Demurrer OYerruled,