The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1897-11-11
THE WRIT VACATED.

The supreme court has handed down
its decision in the case of Mayor
Townsend VS.. the City Council, vacat-
ing the writ, which permits the coun-
ell to proceed with the impeachment
proceedings, which will take place at
the office of the city clerk on next
Monday evening. The following is
the syllabus of the decision, which
was written by Judge Collins:
State ex rel. VIM. ID. Townsend, plain
tiff,
j. w. Ward ct al, defendants.
1. The writ of prohibition is an
extraordinary writ issuing out of a
court of superior Jurisdiction and
directed to an inferior court, or some
other inferior tribunal. Its object is
to prevent the inferior court or tri-
bnnal from usurping and exercising
some judicial power which it has no
legal authority to exercise at all.
2. 1t cannot be resorted to when the
usual and ordinary forms of remedy
are sufficient to afford redress as by
motion, trial, appeal, certiorari or
otherwise.
3. The common council of the city
of Sank Centre is, by the charter, CIV
en- the power to remove the mayor, or
any elective officer, from Office 'for
cause" and although the charge and
specifications constituting the alleged
cause and on which the council threat
ems to proceed to a trial are vague
indefinate and uncertain, the juris-
diction of the council is not affected
so that writ of prohibition against
the cOuncilwill lie.
4. The nature of the charge and
specifications must not be cOnfOunded
with their sufficiency. The nature Of
the proceedings. determines the ques-
tion of jurisdiction and when it sus-
tains the jurisdiction all questions of
it's sufficiency under the allegations of
the proof pass under the proper cogni-
zance of the tribunal, with power to
determine them according to the law
and the facts. Order to show cause
discharged Collins, j.
1t will be observed that the decision
does not touch the subject matter of
the charges at all, other than saying
that they are ''vague, indefinite and
uncertain" and upon these charges
SO designated the mayor will be tried
and doubtless impeached. All the de-
cision says, in substance, is that a
writ of prohibition will not lie to pre-
vent the council, under our charter,
from trying the mayor upon any
charges that may be made; that the
mayor has other remedy in case of
injustice; and writ of prohibition is
designed to prevent an Inferior court
from exercising usurped powers.
Now nothing remains but for the
council to proceed to formally record |
its verdict OF impeachment. 1t cannot
logically do anything else, for it has
the mayor guilty of the al
legged offense in advance of all pro-
eeedings, by resolution of surpen-
sion. There is nothing to investigate,
for the mayor, over his own signature
IN a written communication, refused
to sign the city order and gave his
therefor. There is nothing
10 prove-it is admitted. The coun-
ell now is answerable to nobody for
It's aetiea-exeepting the people who
will lie heard from later, The case is
not yet closed, however, and probably
will not be with the rendering Of the !
impeachment verdict. Following the
the council must declare
a vacancy at once and order a new
within ten days.