St. Paul daily globe., 1894-05-15

| NOt 1o At-OtuCE DCStSAOhSs
The supreme court yesterday handed
down its decision in the {. Ii. Dart
case, Justice Canty writing the opinion.
| Mr. Dart is ousted from the office of
treasurer of Meeker county. The history
of this case is pretty we'll known to the
public. 1t will be remembered that Mr..
Dart was suspended by the governor Oh
the charge of lrregularity in his meth
DDS as county treasurer. During the
suspension, and before the hearing by
the governor on the evidence gathered
by a special commission, Mr.. Dart re-
signed from his office, and was then re-
elected by the county commissioners.
| The position taken by Mr.. Darts attor-
ney was that by reslgning vacancy
was made in the Office, which the county
commissioners could fill by electing Mr..
Dart. The supreme court holds other.
| wise.
Justice Buck was Ill, hence took no
part in the hearing by the supreme
court.
The opinion of the court, as written
by Justice Canty. is as follows:
This is writ of quo warranto brought
to try the right of the respondent 70 the
office of county treasursr OF Meeker
county. He was elected to that Office at
the general election in November, 1892,
for the term of two years. commencing
Jan. 2. 1893.
On the 27lh day of September. 1898,
governor report under chapter los,
General Laws 1881. charging respond
ent with malfeasance in Office, in this,
that he received in June and July
checks OF divers persons for taxes and
state land, sold and held them as public
moneys and So retained them until said
9th of September and failedto present
any of them Prepayment, and also that
he loaned the public funds to private
parties, i'll all amounting to the sum OF
S2.2O996.
On Oct 8. 1898, upon the filing of
this report, the governor suspended re-
spondent from his said office.
On Oct. &, the board of county COM
missioners met, and by unanimous vote
elected respondent county treasurer ad
interim during his suspension. On Oct.
IL he resigned his office as county treas
urer. In the meantime the governor
had appointed special commissioner
to take and report the testimony tor and
against respondent, and the time tor
taking the same was set for Oct. 12, and
notice given to him. He appeared
specially and objected to the jurisdiction
of the commissioner on the ground that
he had ceased on account OF his reSlgna-
ton to lie treasurer. Afterwards on
the same day the board of county com-
missioners elected him as county treas
urer to fill the vacancy caused by his
resignation.
Afterward the commissioner reported
the testimony taken. and the overnOr
fixed Oct. 81 as the time of hearing and
notified respondent, and, thereafter, on
Nov. 16, made and filed an order
removing respondent from the flee of
treasurer of said county.
The questions presented on this hear
ing are:
First-Had the respondent a right to
resign his Office during the pendency OF
the proceedings for removal and while
under suspension?
Second-1f ne was eligible for reap
pointment by the board OF county COM
missioners.
1t seems to US he had a right to resign
or relinquish his office. call it which
name you will, during the pendency of
the proceedings.
But we are of the opinion that he was
not eligible for reappointment while
under suspension or during the pend
ency of the proceedings. The removal
proceedings cannot be nullitied or re-
versed in that manner. Such removal
proceedings are not merely for the pur-
pose OF ousting the person holding the
office, they include charge that he has
forfeited his quai fication for the
Office for the Remainder of the
term. They are brought to declare
a forfeiture OF civil right, his eligib-
lty, his qualification to hold that Office
for the rest of that term. The proceed.
ing is not brought for his removal from
day or week or month of his term,
but from the whole of the remainder of
his term. and the final order of removal
is not made for his removal from a day
or week or month of his term, but
from the whole of the remainder of his
term. Nothing less is involved in the
proceedings. Whether the voters at the
polls could condone the offense bv
which he forfeited his Office it is not
necessary here to decide. We are of the
opinion thot the county commissioners
cannot do SO.
The fact that respondent may have
had no intention to defraud the county
and that his acts were mere jrregn.
larities, which resulted in no loss to fhe
county. were matters exclusively for
the governor to consider He was an
independent tribunal. State VS.. Peter
son, 52 N. w. K. 655. And as lonQ As
ne kept within his jurisdiction we can
not i'll this proceeding review the uues-
tIons of fact tried by him or determine
how much or how little moral turpltude
there was in these irregularities.
IL Is ordered that relator have judg-