The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-12-10
POWER OF GOVERNOR
HAS VAN SAINT AUTHORITY TO sUs-
PEND SHERIFF ME-
GARDEN.
SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE
Arguments Submitted in Quo War
ranto Proceedings-Questi
One of Great Inn
pOrtance.

T..
Has the governor the power to suspend
an official whom he has the power to re-
move, and if SO, has he the right to name
the person who shall succeed to the tenn
porary vacancy? This is the question
which the supreme court of Minnesota
will decide when it files it's opinion in the
MegaarGen case, which was argued be-
fore the full bench yesterday afternoon.
The decision of this question is regarded
as very important, quite apart from the
immediate case involved, as the question
has apparently never been fully decided
in this state.
The hearing on the writ of quo war
ranto came up before fhe court yesterday.
the state being represented by Assistant
County Attorney C. l.. Smith, of Henne-
pin county, and Assistant Attorney Cen
eral W. j. Donahower, and the defense
by Judge john H. Steele and A. Y. Mer-
rill. The defense presented the following
demurrer, bringing the question directly
before the court:
Now comes the respondent Philip r.
Megaarden. in the above entitled matter
and demurs to the informatit and petit
ton herein. on which the writ IS issued,
on the ground that said information and
petition does not state facts sufficient
to constitute a cause of action and does
not entitle the relator to the relief sought
in this proceeding.
A stipulation was. entered into to The
effect that the defense, in it's demurrer,
admits only the fact that Gen. Pope's
report was presented to the governor,
but does not admit any of the facts stat
ed in the examiners report. The only
case at all like the present one ever be-
fore the Minnesota supreme court was
that of Treasurer Fl. o. Peterson. of
Hennepin county. Petersons suspension
was under an act of the legislature Civ
ing the governor power to suspend finan-
cial officers. Judge Mitchell, who rem
dered the opinion. said:
Whether the power to suspend is in
Guided generally in the power to re-
nioye,so that the former may be exercised
independently of the latter, we need not
consider. But we are very clear that
the power of temporary suspension, Sc
far as necessary and ancilary to the
power to remove. is included in the lat
ter This is under the familiar doc
trine Of implication that, where con-
stltution gives a general power or Ell
joins a duty, it also gives, by implica-
tion.. every particular power necessary
for the exercise of the one or the per-
Torrance Of the other.
This decision was discussed at some
length by both sides in yesterdays argu-
mepts, and Justice Start gave brief re-
view of that case, for the benefit OF the
court.
Judge Steele spoke at length. quoting
freely, from authorities to support his
contention that the weight of authority
in this country holds that the power to
remove does not imply the power to
suspend.
Was Not Sheriff at the Time.
Another point argued by Judge Steele
was that the petition alleged that Me-
garden was elected to the office of
sheriff in 1900, and took his Office on Jan.
7,119O1, and then goes on to recite alleged
malfeasance in Office for the year 1889.
"It does not appear from the petition, y
said Judge Steele, chat he was sheriff at
the time of the alleged malfeasance
There is nothing in the petition to show
that he was sheriff in 1899, or in what ca
pacity he committed the alleged mall
feasance." He contended that Megaar-
den,s present term could not be cut short
because of acts committed in his former
term.
cit is not urged" said Judge Steele,
"that there Is any emergency requiring
his immediate suspension. The sheriff
does not today hold one cent of money be-
longing to- Hennepin county; on the other
hand the county Is Indebted to hin.
Therefore he Should not be suspended
uuIu ctuiSr COIiiliSSlOn UdS investigated
his case and reported on it," He further
ccntended that the governor had no facts
before him on which to warrant his sus-
pension of Megaarden.
Assistant County Attorney Smith, in re-
plying, began by taking up the latter
contention, and started in to read from
Gen. Popes report, to show that the
governor had sufficient facts to justify
the suspension, when he was cut short
by Justice Start, who said the only Ques-
ton at issue was the right of the gov
ernor to suspend, and nothing else should
be argued Mr.. Smith thought that the
retention of an official during an investi-
cation was not good public policy, and
allowed the official to continue his Illegal
practices during the investigation and to
embarrass the proceedings in his own
case eff 1t is true that this man is a
thief and has taken S11, 900 of the peo-
pies money wrongfully, it is an injustice
to taxpayers to permit him to remain in
possession of that Office pending this in
vestigation," said Mr.. Smith. 'That may
be so,'' Interrupted Justice Start, ''but It
has nothing to do with this issue. If the
governor has not the power to suspend
this official, any burden imposed on the
people by his retention of office canrot
change the situation. There is only the
one question in this CASE
After the arguments had been conclud-
ed, the court took the case under ad-
visement. An early decision Is expected.
The court gave no indication of its lean
ing in the matter, although the Justices
asked repeated questions Of the attorneys.