The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-09-15
PUT TO LAWS TEST.
Argument on the Removal OF
Police Commissioners.
CLAIMS or slcolE AND cHEssry
They rssfss that They sheaia Hare
HAD Trsas-The Mayors Fewer
90 K~ns.s D~sendsd.


fest the Legality o. their removal, came np
Before Judge Langley yesterday. Iae
proceedings wsrs instituted by Nsggle and
Chessry TO set aside II possible their re-
nsovsl from the ofEice Of police comrnis-
sionsr, from which they we're removed Tor
cause BY the mayor. The case came BE-
fore the court on . writ Of certsorar1 aud.
after argument. was taken under advise
meat By the court
James d. Hove, in stating the case. said
that Sisgae Was . daily qualified police
com missioner and Was snmmariiy re-
moved from offace without due process Of
law: in other words. without trial or 3
hearing. AS the mayor bad acted judi
ally he was subjsct 80 correction by writ
OF csrtiorari. he would take mp beth
cases jointly. rs shey we're similar. Then
Mr.. Howe read the findings and iudg-
nsnt OF the mayor and said the men had
been removed without . chance for ex-
PLANTATION or defense. The whole question
In nutshell was whether tae mayor was
invested Elth discretionary power 20 re-
move at pleasure or whether he could
only remove his appointses for cause.
Then Mr.. Howe held that the mayor
could remove for cause. bat that cause
meant notice, trial and judicial determine
ton. He quoted section l, article OF the
city charter aud from this argued that the
police commissioners had a Eixed term OF
Office and held their places independent OF
the mayor. Among other things the
charter says that o police commissioner
can be removed and convicted. If he in
fiuencsd In q wrong way any member OF
the police department In the case OF the
chief Of police the charter made IL dis
cretionary with the police commissioners
,to remove him At pleasure, but IN the case
of the police commissions, they could only
be removed for causes and he interpreted
cause" TO mean notice. true and
legal determination of the charges
against them. Mr.. Howe presented
. number OF authorities and quoted
Judge Lsngley's decision In the
case Of the State OF Washington ex rel.
George II. Hebron vs.. ]. W. Van Brock
lin. in which the court held that hearing
was necessary. Mr.. Howe held that there
had Teen q violation OF the law In the
present case. The case Of MeReavy vs..
Burke, and the People va. Whitney, were
cited TO sustain Mr.. Hose's position.
Then Mr.. Howe quoted Dillon on munich
pal corporations TO show tina. when the
municipal Law did not outline the mode of
procedure. the common Law should be OBJ
served. BY this method the accused vas
entitled to notice when aud where the
trial body should meet, the charges should
| be plainly and specifically set forth and
the accused should be granted q reason
able time in which TO answer A number
of other authorities were read TO show that
ar opportunity should be given 20 the
accused TO be heard. In conclusion Mr..
| Howe stated that the authorities were
| united on the point that causes of removal
without hearing could not be sustained
where the law creating the Office provided
that removal should be for cause. The
mayor had not complied with the law in
| this respect aud he thought that the court
| should restore the commissioners 20 their
Offices.
Corporation Counsel Scott spoke onabe-
| half of Mayor Phelps and the city. Mr..
Scott held that where specific charges are
required and notice Of hearing must be
| had TO render a removal Law ful the remoy-
| ing officer or body proceeds judicially. and
| the decision may be reviewed by the court,
but when the Law provides no mode Of ex-
ereising the power the mayor may deter
mine that such cause exists, upon such
| evidence and in such mode as be may
| deen proper, and does not act judicially.
| Ii the charter had intended 10 erect the
mayor into q kind OF judicial tribunal
which could not get jurisdiction of the per-
con without notice il would have provided
| some mode for its regulation, such as for
serving notice, compelling the attendance
/ Of witnesses and administering oaths to
them. To constitute the mayor q judicial
| tribunal could not therefore have been the
/ intent OF the trainers Of the charter.
| Speaking of this power Ar. Scott contin-
| ued;
| at Is absolute where IL is vested in tho
| unlimited discretion Of the removing off,
Ger. 20 be exercised az such time and for
such reasons As the latter may deem
/ proper and sufficient
/ .'lt 10 conditioned when the time, the
manner or the reason Is placed beyond the
1 mere discretion Of the removing officer.
/ In the usual sense Of the word. an officer
/ has the right and duty TO exercise an EN-.
| p4oyment- The common Law doctrine OF
/ the right or the duties of an officer has no
foundation in representative govern
| ment.
Where the state allows removal for
| cause only and requires that the accused
! shall have notiee and an opportunity for
| explanation, and that the true grounds OF
| removal shall be entered upon the records
without specifying any particular act or
| omission, it has been held that the cause
for removal of an officer is TO be derelic.
ton or general neglect Of duty. In other
| eases IL has been held that when Ike au.
thority 60 remove an otiieer tor cause is
/ given. IL does not create the removing
! ofslcer tribunal TO hear aud determine
| vita respeet to the cause OF removal nor
require notice 10 be given 10 the officer.
but allows council or the removing Officer
90 remove him for any cause which Is sat
| ixfaetory.
Where q statute gives o power OF re
moval for cause without any specified.
ton OF the cause. this power Is OF 4
| discretionary and judicial nature; and IN.
lees tha statute Otherwise specially pro-
| vldes the exercise thereof cannot Ia
reviewed by any other tribunal with rs-
speet either 10 the cause or TO its sGf
| hciency or existence or otherwise
ssIn the Rhode Island case, appeal @,
| Willard, the school committee removed
Willard. " DO Was q clerk, bat in that cAse
he had hearing and the court affirmed
tho order OF the Femovai. The question
Of the power 20 remove IS not in The case
az all. aud the case is vAluelsss as a.
authority upon the question here.
''Ia Tennessee the police commission
was AGIhoFissd 20 hear and determine
| ehsrges against q policeman for failure "a
properly discharge bis duties. TIE cour,
| held IN that cass that the fact thai ths
policeman had sued the city in good
faita fos salary supposed 20 lie due ga.
not coed ground for removal
"In she Massachusetts cases the eoavi
discusses learnedly the poser Of visitors
a. related In scelea4AsslcAl matters. ard
Aolas that the rules Of ece sslastscal lau,
govern such matters.
..In Missoari tie decision ia bs.ea