The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-09-18
Langley Decides That He Can
Not Summarily Remove.
SUIT ROGERS IS STILL CHIEF.
ytSgie aud Cheassy Eatisisd 10 TrAi-
The Mayer win AppeaI-Chssssy's
View Of the Decision.


The decision begins as follows:
ssoa motion OF reistor, supported by
affidavit, that respondent. Byron Phelps,
rs mayor Of Seattle. had proceeded with
out jurisdiction and In an unlawful man
nsr 10 remove him from the Office Of police
com missioner, the writ OF certiorsri was
ordered in thi. case TO bring the record Of
such proceedings IS were had BIZ the mayor
before this court for iss consideration.
The mayors return shows two papers
signed by himself IS comprising ali the
record of his proceedings relating TO such
alleged removal
The judge then read the mayors letter
of removal and the one covering the ind
ing and decisions. The judge then said:
This return constitutes whatever OF de-
Tense respondents have 20 the writ. and
presents the question Of its sufsc.ency in
law fer that purpose
The real issue as presented BY the writ
and return is: Did the mayor IN his at
tempt 10 remove relator bs-e jurisdiction
TO proceed in the nannef stated BY the re-
turns
eff the mayors power OF reFloval may
be exercised 81 discretion, tSsrs his return
would be q complete defense and this court
would have no jurisdiction TO review his
proceedings In thai case the first SEN
teuce OF bis letter TO relator was all that
was necessary to the exercise of such dis
erection. and his act would be final. But
his subsequent ex parte adjudication of the
matter of the charges against relator
would show that he entertained some
doubts of his discretionary powers. and
gives TO his purpose the form Of judg-
ment of custer.
II do not think the supposed inysstlga-
zion and judgment had any force or effect
in Law whatever. for If the power TO re-
"A a
ing was required by law, and II not dis
cretionary, then IL was no such investiga-
lion as the law requires.
Gould the mayor remove relator at dis
cretlon, no matter what the gravity Of the
charge may have been2
"Relator was al officer of the city, duly
appointed, approved and qualified. Tor the
period of four years from the 9Th day of
February. 1894 He was an officer within
the meaning of the city charter.
"By section Z, article l9. of the charter
the mayor is empowered to remove ap-
pointed officers for cause.
ITO remove such officers is within his
jurisdiction, and bis power TO remove is
without limit, unless the phrase for cause
created such limitation. That 1t has
a qualifying force is conceded BY the
learned corporation counsel, but not TO
the extent as claimed by counsel for re-
Iator.
The phrase for cause or its equivalent
occurs SO frequently in constitutions,
statutes and ordinances relating 10 the
duties OF public officers and their removal,
that text writer's hare come to regard il as
possessing 3 technical meaning.
"'Anderson's Dictionary Of Law IN
der Removal for Cause, says the term 'im-
ports that a reason exists personal 10 the
individual, which the law aud sound pub
lie opinion recognize as n good cause for
bis no longer occupying the place.
And further. The power TO remove an
officer for cause" can be exertsd only for
Jpst cause, after he has had an opportu-
nifty TO defend
THE authorities are abundant and prac-
tically uniform that where the power is
vested by law In one public officer to re-
move for cause another holding for a
definite term, such power can only be ex-
ercissd on notice. charges, hearing and
final discrimination. That the proceed
ing for removal is judicial in its character
and must be conducted according TO the
essential elements of the law fHaight vs..
Love, 80 y. ]. L., IL Troop on Pub of,
sec. 37s; Mechem on Pub. on, secs. Ills;
Am. and Eng. Enc. OF Law, vol. IS. So b..
State ex rel. Hebron VS.. Van Brocklin, s
Wash, 5o1; State ex rel McReavy vs..
Burke, H., Az, and numerous citstions.l
ain the Hebron case there were spe-
cifc charges notice and hearing before the
mayor. The only questions brought before
the courts related 20 the fnaiity OF the
removal order and the sufiicieney In law
of the charges and findings against the
relator, and the removal was sustained by
the supreme court upon the majority
opinion of the judges, that one of the
charges constituted good cause for
removal. The reiator in that case was a
charter officer with fixed tenure. and In
law belonged to the same class as relator
in the case now under confederation.
''In the MeResyy case the court held
that the relator was an officer of the state
with no defined term of office, and fell in
that class of public officers whom the gov
ernor under the statutes. might remove
for cause satisfactory 30 himself and file
with the secretary OF state his order OF re-
moval. The supreme court fully agrees
with the propositions laid down oy coun-
sci for the relator in that case to the effect
that, w here power to remove an officer
for cause is reposed in any tribunal or
officer, that power cannot be exercised
without notice and hearing or, AN OPP
portunity TO be heard in his defense but
adds. The question 10 be determined Ia
whether this case falls within that class
and the court determined that IL did not
"In his attempt at removal the mayor
seems 10 have eonformed as nearly as
practicable 10 the methods adopted by
the governor in the McReavy case. and
lating TO the cases we're analogous. but
being wholly dissiInilar they required
dirsren, procedure. IL is not for this
court. limited TO . review Of the proceed
tngs of the mayor, TO psss at all upon the
character of the charges, or determine
whether they are sufficient in statement
and law TO warrant a removal II duly
proven. such questions can only come
into court, If ~ all. after the mayor has
proceeded under the forms of law 10
hearing Of the accused, and By thai means
Effected his removal
The writ Of certiorari in this case has
served its only legitimate purpose in bring
ing the record Of the mayors action be-
fore the court. ffrom that record alone
it appears TO the court that the mayor
acted within bis jurisdiction and proceed
Ell lawfully the writ should lie qnashed,
but If otherwise the proceedings had BY
and before him should be held OF no effect
Viewing the Office OF police commits
sioner as one from which the incumbent
can only be removed for cause, upon
charges. notice and bearing. 1 am COM
PEELED TO hold that the mayors attempt a.
summary removal as shown by his return.
vas without authority Of las and the pro-
ceedingx had by him Ia that behalf are
absolutely nall and void, and should bs
quAshsd.
Counsel tor rslator will prepare an
order IN accordance with this decision."
Mayor Phelps can now appeal 20 the So
prsEns court. or he eau, 81 this time. fsle
hts charges against the commissioners and
after hearing, IL the charges are sus-
tanned by evidence, lie has the right Of re-
znOxaL
Mayer Phelps Was seen regarding thu
decision Of the court He declined to
comment upon 10 further thaa to say that