Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1894-03-09

southern States Of the Union, which
We" largely pcopied hy the Latin races
and which derived their Jurisprudence
IN a large measure from the French
and spanish civil law That system
"i Jurisprudence, while admirable in
many respects, Il. We know, was nodded
= 10 suit the peculiar eXigencies Of the
i"rmS OF government under which it
i'ourl>hed, the iir,t principle Of which
wls that the CHIEF executive ruler of
the state was omnipotcnt and all
powerful.
With such 4 people, surrounded hv
such influences, it is not surprising
that they should depart from the
rugged principles OF common law, a
system which deals, not in ah>trac-
tons and retincmcnts, but which
links itself, as with hooks OF steel. to
underlying fundamental principles.
And the departure in this case is the
: less surprising when, upon looking
into the decisions We find that both
Court and counsl were ignorant Of
the principle of the common law in
question and OF tie long line OF deciS.
ions which announced and cxempliiicd
it. Nor is it surprising in this day of
latltudlnarlan construction and of rage
! for fanciiul innovation, that three or
four States, from which better things
were to be expected, also in partial IL
nOrance OF the line Of English and
American authorizes, should have iol-
lowed these cOJrts away from the
beaten track SO sturdily and conSis-
tcntly pursued ly the English and
American judge But it would be
surprising, | mus. he permitted to say,
il this court, composed OF members
nurturcd in the eachingS of the COM
mon law, familiar with and devoted to
the great principles OF free represent
tatlve government, and proud of the
great names which have illustrated
those principles in this country and in
England. on the bench, at the bar and
in the forum, in the full light and
glare of the distinguished precedence,
establishing and maintaining the com
mon law rule, should prove insensible
to the great and overwhelming force
OF the principles upon which that rule
is founded The rule is founded on
two principles, neither of them pecu-
liar to the Anglo.Saxon civilization.
but both OF which have received their
most signal application at its hands.
The first OF these is that it is contrary
to the principles of eternal justice that
a man should be judged and con-
demned unhcard. The other, that
ours Is government of law and that
every man within it or under it, no
matter how exalted his station, must
listen to its precepts and be governed
by its imperial mandates. Thank God
we have nothing imperial in this coun-
try, save and except the impersonal
but imperial power of the law, and
every man who loves liberty and ven
crates the institutions by which it has
been so long and SO well preserved, is
proud TO uncover and do homage to
that impersonal but imperial and ma
jestic presence. That ours is a govern
ment of law, emphatically of law, and
that this fact should never be lost
sight of in the administration of JUS
tice, is impressed upon us by the bill
OF rights Of our State Constitution.
The first section OF that article declares
that call political power is inherent in
the people; that governments derive
their just powers from the consent of
the governed, and are established to
protect and maintain individual right"
And lest this fact should be lost sight
OF occasionally, in the hurry and rush
OF life, we are admonished by the last
section of that article that "a frequent
recurrence to fundamental principles
is essential to the security of individ-
ual right and the perpetuity of free
government" In the light of these
principles, and thus admonished as to
their application by the great organic
law OF our State, let us look briefly, for
our time is limited, to the contention
which is now before the court.
Judge Turner then took up the au-
thorities and showed that the decisions
in England have been uniform upon
statutes similar to those empowering
the Governor to remove in this State,
to the effect that the power could be
exercised only after notice and hear
ing to the officer. He also showed
that this ruling had been consistently
followed in Massachusetts, Pennsylva-
MIA, Rhode Island, New York, New
Jersey, Virginia, South Carolina, Ken
lucky, Tennessee, Michigan, Wiscon-
sin, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska
and Colorado, and that few decisions
to the contrary had proceeded upon
exceptional grounds and ignorance of
the common law principles and OF the
line of authorities sustaining it. He
then concluded as follows:
| need not elaborate upon the in.
justice OF permitting the reputation OF
all individual to be stricken down by
the hand of official power. No more
forCible illustration of that Injustice
can be presented than is presented by
the facts of this case. | may be par
doned for saying that the relator in
this case, John McReavy, has lived
long and useful life in this community
and this State. For % years, almos'
continually, he has been member OF
the Legislative branch of the Terrific
rial and State government. He was
member of the convention which
framed the organic law of this State,
along with majority of the members
OF this Court. In every relation of
life in which he has been placed he
has borne himself as man of honesty.
integrity and capacity, and in official
station has at all times been Jealous
for the public welfare. Yet this man,
so we'll and so favorably known to the
Court and the public, has been struck
down without moments warning by
the hand that should be raised in de-
Tense OF us all. 1t is rs if one were
blasted by stroke of lightning from
a clear sky. Is is possible that we
have framed system of government
in which this is permissible to the
hand OF powerg Is it possible that
this is in cOnsOnaprp with tho fnpdo