St. Paul daily globe., 1892-05-27
HEN NEPIN's TREASURER.
The Case Against II. o. Peterson
Will be Argued Today. 5f

Will be Argued To-day.
The case of III. o. Peterson, the treas
urer of Hennepin county, who was sus-
pended by Gov. Merriam some time
since upon a report made by Public Ex-
aminer Kenyon, will come up i'll the
supreme court this morning. 1t VIII
be a hard-fOught case and presents
several nice questions that have never
been passed upon before by the courts
of this or any other state. 1t Will he
remembered that the order SuSpendlng
Mr.. Peterson was signed by the gov
ernor in the city of Chicago. and upon
this point the defense place great stress.
In the attorney generals brief this
question Is argued at great length, and
many authorities are quoted on the side
of the state. The attorney general
divides his argument into six parts, the
subjects being as follows:
First-The Independence of the executive
department.
Second-Is the law of 1881 constitutional?
Thirdly ested rights.
Fourth-Power TO remove carries power to
suspend
Fifth-Suspension not punishment
SiXth-Malfeasance
On the first point the attorney general
holds that the court will observe the
limitations of the three departments OF
the state government.
For the court" says the brief. ito
enter upon an inquiry as to where or
how the governor has performed any OF
his official acts. will certainly be an ell
1fenchment upon his constitutional
prerOgatiye and an invasion by the
court of that department of which the
governor is made by the constitution
the supreme head. 1t must be admitted
on all hands that the discussion OF this
question can be but slightly aided by
the adjudicationS of courts, as we ind
very few instances in the decisions of
this country where it appears to have
engaged their attention.
Such contention, if made, will be met
by the two following propositions:
First-The Court will not presume TO in
quire whether the chief executive performs
his official duties within the state or without
the state.
Second.-It is matter of no importance
where the order was executed so long as 1t
was the official act OF the governor or so re-
garded by him.
After quoting a Massachusetts case
bearing on this question the ttOrney
general i'll speaking of the signing of
the order removing Mr.. Peterson says:
s.On its face it appears to have been done
at the capital of the state. and bears every
indicia of being made at that place; and al
though it may have been IN fact signed be-
yend the boundaries of the state, il cannot
be possible that such fact will vitiate the sig
nature or the order OF suspension. AS the
custodian of the chief executive power of
the state, it's for the governor alone to say
when or now ne shall exercise that power;
so long as he violates no constitutional pro-
vision. the performance of his duties sleft
to his OWL discretion. We look to the con-
stituton in vain for any express or implied
restraint upon him in the exercise OF his
official function i'll this regard 81
The attorneys of Mr.. Peterson claim
that the law Of 1881 is unconstitutional
because it provides for suspension with
out notice and cOnferS Judicial powers
on the governor. Neither of these pot
sitions is held tenabIe by the attorney
general who quotes, article Ii, section sS
of the state constitution. which followsi;
The Legislature of this state may provide
for the removal of inferior officers from office
for maifeasance or nonfeasance in the per-
formance of their duties.
70 the claim that the county treas.
urer had acquired vested right, the
brief of the attorney general declares
that a no more repugnant prOpOSitiUtl
can be presented to the American mind
than that all incumbent OWNS his office. !
The power to remove carries the right
to suspend is argued at length, as
well as the proposition that suspension
is not punishment.
The question of whether or not Mr..
Peterson was guilty of E:alfeaSance the
brief holds to be one for the governor
alone to decide; authorities TO show this
are quoted and the brief ends as fol-
lows:
However. independently of that question,
we insist upon the sutficiency of the showing
The acceptance of the extra compensation
was clearly misdemeauOr.
s'AE executive officer who asks or receives
any emolument or gratuity, or reward, or
any promise of emolument gratuity or re-
ward. except such as may be authorized by
law for doing any official act, is guilty of u
misdemeanor. r."-Penal Code, section 49,