The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-03-13
The Governor Had a Perfect
Right to Remove Him.
WITHOUT GRANTING A HEARING.
Members Of Capitol Commission Serve
at the Governors Pleasure.
Their Position IL Di1ereat From That
ofoncers with Fix ed Terms-Though
the pecisiou Was Expected. Olympia
R~joic~s That the Delay IL over.


ton of Gov. Acoraw in the removal Of
John McReavy from the capitol ecmmis-
sion was sustained by the supreme court
In decision filed today in the case o. the
state OF Washington, on complaint of John
MeRsavy. vs.. Thomas Burke, respondent.
GOV. McGraw. after the removal of Me-
Reayy for misconduct in office. appointed
Thomas Burke. the respondent, to fill the
vacancy. Respondent qualified and en-
tered upon The duties OF the office. and ap-
peilant brought QUO warranto proceedings
IN the superior court of Thurstou county
20 test tue question Of title 10 the Office.
alleging that tue removsi was made with
out notice aud without giving an oppor-
tunity for defense To this respondent
demur.ed on the ground that the state
men. did not constitute grounds for ac-
tion. and further that i. appeared atfirma-
lively that relator was legally removed
and defendant regularly appointed. The
court below sustained the demurrer and
an appeal was tGken.
The decision quotes the clause of the
capitol commission act referring to re-
moval for cause, and says there was no
specification in tie act as TO the manner of
removal. the only other legislation bear
ing on the case being the act of March 10.
l.9A authorizing removal. by the governor
al officers not liable TO impeachment. In
reference TO the contention that appellant
could no, be removed without notice, the
court saws:
"A long line of authorities were pre-
sented upon the proposition that where
an officer has been appointed for definite
time, subject TO removal for cause he can
not be removed except in pursuance of
findings npon charges, and, while there
are many cases to the contrary the court
Is satisfied that the great weight Of author
ity 10 Tor the appellant. and the question is
whether the cas-. fails within this class
This brings up the question whether the
term is liked and definite. The Office is
not one provided by the constitu-
ton, but created by the legislature
If the term depended solely upon the pro-
vision IN the act that the commission
shonld hold Office till completion and ac-
ceptance of the building. the court would
regard the term IS definite one. but as
the legislature recognized the fact that
public interests might require the term of
a commissioner to terminate before COM
pietion OF the building q clause was
added, unless sooner removed for cause
by the governor As no method for re-
movai is specified, il seems plain that the
legislature hadIin rev the prior act relat-
ing TO removals bv the governor IL is
consended that removal for cause involves
direct attack upon the reputation of the
officer, and that he las right to be heard
upon the charges. Ii the governor should
be disposed TO act unfairly he could as
well act regardless of the merits of the
showing upon the hearing. and il
Is difficult TO see where the rights
of the incumbent would be any
EAssa - u
the insertion of the removal clause in tho
commission act, in view Of the former act,
the intention was not to make a definite
term, and the term was hxed that the
person appointed should hold so long as
satisfactory to the governor. Appellant
accepted office with this condition at
tached. The act does not specify that a
hearing shall be had, but Is specific as TO
the manner of proceeding otherwise, and
these Specifications are inconsistent with
the claim that there must he prior hear
ing. The act also provides that at the
time of making removal the governor
shall appoint another person to fill the
Office, which provision is inconsistent
With the view that such action was not
intended 10 be final. Again, the act pro-
vdes for removal whenever the governor
is satisfied that any enumerated cause
exists, but ii does not say how the gov
ernor shall be satisfied.
There is no question that the specific
terms of the act we're compiled with. and
II the act is valid the governor performed
but his plain duty. While the act is not
directly attacked as unconstitutional. it is
attaC ked inferentialiy on the ground that
tie constitution as bearing upon the act
creating the board requires notice aad op-
portunity 10 be heard. But IL may never
the.ess. be construed in connection with
the clause OF the latter act In arriving at
the intention as TO fixing duration OF the
term. Some of the causes cited IN
this case go so far as to hold
that where the term is fixed
and definite one. and when removal
can only be had for cause existing, the
authority To remove may be vested in a
person as discretionary one, and may be
exercised without notice or hearing, not
subject 10 review. bat the weight of au-
tl0riiy - against this. Nor did counsel
for respondent undertake 10 maintain
otherwise. bat contended that the acts in
question must lie construed as limita-
tlon upon the term of office. and conse-
quently that the term Of office il in so far
au indefinite one, and their contention in
this respect must lie sustained. Al
urmed.
The opinion is bg Scott, all the Judges
coucuFrlng but Stiles. Rho non-concurred
solely on ghe ground that the Office ss
not . constitutional one.
The decision oceasioned no great surprise
here, but was generally regarded as one
fully justified by the Law and authorities.
Great satisfaction is felt that this obstacle
~ .he progress Of building operations has
oesh removed. and hope is expressed tina,
the veIstious delays will now cease.
Olympia people repose unbounded conf
dence IN the governor and the commission
as now constituted. and taeTe are now few
whO are net confident that the commission
y III make conscientious effort TO carry
on tue WORK.
The supreme court has reversed judg-
aent of the lower court n the case OF the