St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-10-26

u
manner, vote would have been taken
two months ago.
SOME PROBABLE COMPLlCA-
TIONs.
The case of Dart promises to entangle
"HiS Excellency' in some perplexing
complications. The hearing has been
formally set for the 30th instant. and Mr..
Dart has been summoned to then and
there be and appear and show Cause
why he should not be removed from
his office as treasurer Of the good
county of Meeker. The GLOBE is not
advised as to Mr.. Darts intentions in
the case. 1t is not aware that he has
consulted men learned in the law or
that me has retained any of them to APP
pear before His EXcellency" on the
eventful day. We hope he has, because
there are some little matters that should
be set down then for the delectation of
the governor. which might not occur to
him should no lawyer come in behalf of
Dart to suggest them.
AS Mr.. Dart has not advised the
GLOBE whether he will appear by coun-
the matters referred to are, in our hum
bic opinion, of great public Importance,
an Importance that transcendS the indi-
vidual interests of MIR. Dart. the GLOBE,
as faithful guardian of the interests
and welfare of the public. assumes the
right and duty of submitting to His
Excellency" some considerations for his
mind to exercise itself on, asking the
pardon of any counsel Mr.. Dart may
have engaged If it anticipates any points
they may have noted on their brief.
We believe that it is conceded, as a
matter of fact, that certain charges were
preferred against Dart; that he was sus-
pended from office by the governor
pending all examination into the
charges; that he resigned his Office be-
fore the commissioner sat to take the
testimony; that he was thereafter ap
pointed by the county commissioners to
fill the vacancy caused by his own resg
nation; that he gave the bona and
qualified, and entered on the discharge
of his duties.
We submit to yoIr eXcellency that
when Dart resigned his Office and the
Ousted of all further jurisdiction to ex-
anime into the charges preferred and to
render any decision on the testimony.
We need not remind you that your
powers are limited to removing an Off
Ger from his place. You can pass no
other sentence on him. You cannot fine
him or imprison him, and your sentence
works no disqualification from office.
You simply examine to learn if it be
true that public officer within your
jurisdiction has been unfaithful, and, if
so. to discharge him. If the officer has
committed a crime the statutes of the
state prescribes the mode of furnishing
him in a judicial proceeding. We think
there will be no disagreement as to this
point.
Should your honor wish reference
to any precedent for the point we make
that you became functus officIo as to
this case when Dart was once safely out
of Office. we refer you to the somewhat
noted case of Belkuap. secretary of
war under Grant, president. Articles
of impeachment having been presented
against him for malfeasance in office to
the senate by the house of representa-
tives. it was pleaded in abatement that
Belknap had resigned and his reslgna-
ton had been accepted. and the senate
held the plea good and dismissed the
proceedings. Dart, by his accepted res
ignation, being out of Office, it is appar-
ent that you cannot remove him from
an Office he does not fill. Such an order
issued by you would be mere brutum
fulmen, to borrow term from the
counsel who are not in the case.
But il may be suggested by the learned
attorney general that Dart is in office,
having been reappointed and having
qualified; and that, therefore, you have
jurisdiction both of the case and of the
person. We think that a little reflec-
ton will satisfy your honor that this
position is untenaDle. though plausible.
However much an officer may be held
responsible for what occurred in his in
cumbency, it will not be urged for a
moment that he can be held for what
occurs after it expires, whether the ex-
piry is caused by termination of period
or resignation of office. He could not
| be removed from one Office Tor offenSes
! committed in another and former one.
| Dart treasurer-elect for term is dis
tinct officer from Dart appointed ad
! interim. He may be punished in a
criminal proceeding for acts when
| treasurer for term, but he cannot be
| removed now for acts done then.
| Should this point need precedent
and we take it that you have all law
| yer's love for that--we beg to suggest that
! this court has set one that controls this
case. Your "EXcellency" will recall
| the incident of one Burke preferring
| charges against one Kenyon. whom you
| had appointed as bank examiner of the
| state on the expiration of his term in
the same office by appointment of Gov.
| Merriam, charging him with malfeas-
| ance or miSfeasance in Office in that
| little matter of the examination of the
| Guaranty Loan company, whose solv-
| ency and honesty of methods Kenyon
had avouched to the investing public,
| when he knew. or might have known,
that it was rotten to- the core. In that
case your honor suaveIy but firmly re-
fused to take cognizance of the COM
plant, expressly on the grounds that
this dereliction of Kenyon's occurred in
prior term. and that ne was not anne
nable to removal now for acts of commits
sion or omission then. We regard this
case of Kenyon as decisive of the case
of Dart, and submit that your honor has
| no jurisdiction further than to enter an
| order of dismissal.
Heard in the Supreme Court.