The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-01-23
And Gov. Rogers and Regent G.
NJ. yesterday Are Happy.
JACOBS FILES HIS OPINION.
Follows the Decision Of the state So
preme Court In the Capitol Conn
mission Case. and Holds That the
Governor Had q Right 10 Remove
Fay without N0tice-Fay says He
viii Appeal-The Courts Decision.

Judge Orange Jacobs. Of the civil de-
partment Of the superior court, handed
down his opinion In the University of
Washington regency case yesterday morn
Ing al 10 O'Clock The opinion is against
ex-Regent John T.. Fay. The case is en-
titled in the court records John +. Fay VS.
c. Al. yesterday. and came up for ar
gument Monday a week ago on the de-
PENDANTS demurrer. Judge Jacobs took
the case under Amusement on January IL,
and his opinion yesterday sustained the
demurrer Judge Jacobs considered the
whole matter from the stand taken by the
commission case of McReavy VS.. Burke.
The decision Is a victory for Gov Rogers
and Regen, yesterday.
Fay's removal from the board of regents
was caused by "a disagreement with Gov.
Rogers in regard 10 Prof. Meany, of the
university faculty. 1, is alleged that Rog-
ers demanded Meany's removal for petit
teal reasons, and that Fay refused to vote
for the removal. Without warning. notice
of hearing or notice of charges pending.
Gov. Rogers wrote out an order removing
Regents Fay, Davis and Hayden and the
same day appointed their successors. G.
NJ. yesterday succeeded Regent Fay. who
at once announced his Intention of test
ing The legality of the governors removal
in the courts. AS soon as possible he filed
his complaint. 10 which yesterday.
through his attorney, filed a demurrer.
The argun mt was very heated and con-
sumed two days.
Ex-Regeni Fay was in court yesterday
morning when Judge Jacobs read his
opinion AS soon as the judge had fir
ishei reading. Attorney Fay In his own
behalf flied notice of appeal and entered
exceptions. Mr.. Fay says that the case Of
McRcavy vs.. Burke, which was the basis
or Judge Jacobs opinion, has no bear
Ing In his case. The distinction he makes
Is that the office of regent OF the Univer-
sity of Washington is for fixed term
and cannot be revoked at the pleasure Of
the governor. He will prepare the papers
Tor the appeal soon as possible. and
expects decision in his favor at the
hands OF the supreme court Ex-Regents
Davis and Hayden will not make any
move TO regain their places on the board
until Mr.. Fay's case against Regent Eas-
terday Is settled If the supreme court
should sustain Judge Jacobs. the other
ousted regents viii drop the matter.
Judge Jacobs Opinion.
Judge Jacobs opinion as read In court
yesterday morning follows:
This is statutory action in the nature
OF quo warranto 10 try the title 10 the
office OF regent OF the state university
The reiator alleges that he was appoint
cd regent on the 18Th day OF March. 1897.
expire on the second Monday OF March.
1ss He further alleges that Immediatelv
after his appointment he accepted the Of
flee. filed his oath OF office as required by
law and entered upon the discharge OF the
duties OF said office and received it's hon.
ors ana emoiuments up TO October Is.
1877. when, he alleges he was wrongfully
removed from said office and the defendant
VAS appointed. who duly qualified and
claims the right to the office. II Is mani
lest that II the relator was removed from
said office without authority al law that
ne ought TO he restored to the office. to-
gether with It's rights and privileges This
ts the question 20 be decided
Sections and or article V Of the cen
suintion or this state divide offices 80
far as removal from the same is con-
vtdes that the governor and other state
and Judicial officers. except Judges and
justices of courts not of record, Shall be
miSdemeanofs OF malfeasance I'm office
and upon conviction shall be removed
therefrom and be disqualified thereafter
to hold any office of honor. trust or profit
in the state"
Section o. said article provides tha.
"aii officers not liable 10 Impeachment
shall be subject 10 removal FOR misconduct
or malfeasance in office in such manner as
may be provided by law
II VIII be noticed that this section does
not designate VINO shall have the power
of removal or amotioa. This section re-
auires ieSislaJion TO make Il effective. both
To designate she manner Of the removal
ard the person. officer or tribunal who is
To have the authority 10 exercise the
power; In execution 81 this constitutional
provision the legislature OF this state IN
lSSs passed an act. which was approved
March 10 Of said year. covering the whole
sahleCt-lsaws u fS3 pages ca and s4S
The first section % this acf gives the gev-
eraor of this state authority and power 10
remove from Office all state officers APP
pointed by him NOT liable Re Impeachment
for misconduct or Snalfsassnce and also
for incompetency. This hast clause Is an
attempted legislative enlargement ~ the
constitutional provision quoted above aud
= OF doubtful validity. This question. how
ever, IS not Involved IN this ease. for the
competency ~ the re}atcr was not chal-
lenGvd by the governor: misconduct in Of
hNe MAS the alleged ground ~ the re-
fnoVal
section - this legislative at provides
that whenever the governor Is satisfied
that any officer not liable TO iHpca chnent
iss been snilty OF misconduct etc ~
shall Hle with The secretary 81 state
statement showing h4S reasons. with hlS
nrster az removal and the secretary ~
state Sha}l forthwith SIND certified copy
q S0t1 0rdgF 09 removal and statement q
causes hy. registered mail - the last
known eostofflce address OF ne officer re
mGVSG "
is Is very NANTES, shat this section pro-
Nifies faF $50 hearing the oniy notice PRO
Nife'2 Tor = ths 0ot3>e of the fast - re-
moNaA pifh t.e reasons therefor. TEE
nrss and or.1v rottee provided for Is the
notice ~ ihe accomplished facf. ard that
sbe governor IL satisfied shAt tAe specified
csu<S exists
Section ~ fhe So. provides that n ere
time ~ maktvE tass removal freu offfce
provided for Sc the prec~Stiag Ss~efi0a the
zuNTFuNf shall aHpotRt some uru1.T Per
S.st 90 s II SElCe cshce who snail forthwith
demand AB3 receive fFaEU she Officer re-
esi THE papers. rsssartiS M prcuFrtY -
th. state inertia lnEnS 80 ere Uff7rn. and shalt
ftytaFm rae duItas ~ such cffice ard re-
.,ci4r the s~szssss,ss tton EhUrecf Gutl his
successor IS appointed and qualified.
u IL admitted "a thls ease