Daily new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1897-1906, 1901-04-25


any of its agencies except through re-
peal or amendment of the law and
this cannot be done unless the pro-
fessorship is recognized 10 be a quasi
public Office, which the incum bent
holds by appointment Instead of by
contract which must be carried out in
good faith aud the Legislature may
not impair 1t TO the injury or damage
Of the incumbent. Hall VS. Wiscon-
sin, 1913 e. S., 5, The state may
abolish any Office created by it, but
not SO as To impair the obligation of
contract.
So whether we view professorship
as an office held by appointment or
pubic service held by contract the in
cumbent had vested right therein
affecting both his living and profess
sional reputation of which he could
not be deprived except by due process
OF law. Ii it was mere contractual
relation the incumbent under the law
was entitled to enjoy it until he was
| removed for good cause and as his
damages are non-ascertainabl because
OF the indtiniteness of the term he is
entitled TO have his proposed illegal
| removal prohibited or TO be restored
| by mandamus after the removal be-
comes effective. AL departments Of
/ the state government are subject to
both state and National constitution
al inhibitions preventative Of individ-
ual rights aud neither the executive,
/ legislative or judicial departments or
| any OF the agencies thereof may de-
prive any person of such rights with
out due process Of law.
! 1t is said, however, that the SUI
preme court of the United States in
the case of Taylor VS. Beckham, lis u.
S. 548 has held, that no person can
have such an interest Ia a state office
as amounts TO property within the
meaning Of the fourteenth amendment
TO the federal constitution. This de
cision does not go to this extent, but
| through fear that it might be so I'M
| derstood four Of the nine judges re-
fused to concur therein as TO this
proposition. The decision as | under
/ stand it is that there can be no ahso-
Lutte right of property In any public
office and that Taylor ana Marshall
/ had no vested rights in their respee-
tive Offices as Governor and Lieuten-
aud Governor but were only occupying
them Professionally until the true
right Of Office was determined by the
General Assembly which was made
the final Judge of this question by the
Constitution OF the State and whose
determination was conclusive and
| final and could not be reviewed either
by the Supreme court of the state or
the Supreme Court of the United
States. 1t was the constitutional
authority of the General Assembly
to finally say where the right of Office
was and it having found against Tay-
lor and Marshall they had no vested
| right in the Offices that came under
the protection Of the Federal Consti-
tuition. The Supreme court limits its
decision to the offices AMI the circum-
stances of the case, 1t is not a gen.
eral decision that applies to all public
offices. state and national as is made
clear in the dissenting opinions, for 1t
is clearly shown by them that the for
mer decisions of the court have estab-
lished the contrary doctrine. There
is quite difference between an origi-
nal contest for office and removal
therefrom. In the former case the
right or title to the Office not yet
vested is involved ia the latter the
title to the office is conceded and the
incumbent is ia full possession and
enjoyment thereof and the proceed
ings seek to deprive him Of conced-
ed vested right by reason of a legal
forfeiture for some good cause, the es-
Establishment of which avoids his right
to continue in it's possession and en-
joyment. Nor is the question OF
states rights involved in this contro-
very, but it is question as to wheth-
er the state officers IN dealing with
private rights can be required to con-
form to the statute OF their creation
and the law of the land or can disre-
gard all law while they remain in Of
flee and act according TO their own
arbitrary and uncontrolled wills as
monarchs Of all they survey while
none their rights dare dispute. Ac-
cording to the holding of two Of the
| judges, at least, majority OF the
board are law unto themselves, not
bound by the statute Of their creation
but may wholly disregard its require
ments to the injury and destruction
OF the rights OF others and their ac-
tion in doing SO is not renewable in
any manner by the courts.
1t is hardly conceivable that men
learned in the law could arrive at
such conclusion Ia government
where law and not individual will Is
always recognized as paramount and
supreme. There is no doubt but that
the Legislature may change the law
and abolish the professorships at
pleasure, being In nature Of offices,
but the Board OF Regents must con-
form TO the law as written and IL they
do not the courts should compel them
to do so.