The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1901-12-16

In contempt of court.
Syllabus of the Decision.
In the syllabus, Judge Lovely summar-
ICES the rulings of the court as follows:
State of Minnesota ex rel W. B. Douglas, at
torney general, relator, VS.. Philip T. Me-
garden, respondent
First-The governor has authority to remove
sheriff from office, whenever it appears by
competent evidence that such officer has been
guilty Of malfeasance or nonfeasance in the
performance of his official Duties" upon pro-
ceedings provided for in chapters 1893 to 9O3
inclusive, G. S. 1894.
Second-In the enactments referred to no
provision is to be found authorizing the sus-
pension of a sheriff pending proceedings for
his removal, but that power impliedly exists
as incidental to the executive authority to re-
move, and may be exercised by the governor
in 9 proper case.
Third-The power to suspend an officer dur
ing investigation under the statutory provi-
sions referred to is not arbitrary, but involves
the exercise of discretion and good Judgment
by the governor, and may or may not be ex-
erclsed, as wise exercise of such judgment
and discretion and shall indicate public ne
cessity for the order of suspension.
Some Specific Points.
After summarizing the history of the
case LQ0 opinion says.
1t is claimed that by the statement in the
report of the public examiner it does not ap-
pear that the alleged acts of malfeasance oc-
Cured during respondents present term Of
office.
1t is only necessary to say with reference
to this claim that the Office of sheriff has
ilcng been deemed in this county as SO imp5r-
tant that such official will be recognized in
all the courts of his state, and his appoint
|
proved. Hence this court will take judicial
notice that respondent was in fact holding
such office for the term previous to 1901.
With regard to the claim that an in
vestigation in removal proceedings cam
not take knowledge of misconduct previ-
Gus to the present term, the court says:
We cannot hold this contention we'll taken
in this case. Many charges by the public
examiner relating to the ter mprevious to
the sheriffs incumbency are of the same
nature as one specific act occurring during
his present term and it is further stated in
the information that large sums of money
illegally collected during the previous years
are still retained.
Without entering into details we are salts
fed from the facts set forth that tested by
this requirement the complaint of the public
examiner, including the facts in his report,
was sufficient to authorize an investigation.
The Governors Authority.
| The court then comes down to the real
point at issue, the governors power to
suspend pending an investigation, The
| court finds that that power is not confer
red by the laws, explicitly. 1t should be
clearly expressed, and the revision COM
mission is recommended to include such
i provision in the statutes.
In the absence of direct law on the sub
ject, the court relies on a Missouri de-
cesion, 16 Mo-, app. 1880 State VS.. Police
Commissioners, in which the court said:
The suspension of an officer, pending his
trial, for misconduct, so as to tie his hands
for the time being, seems to be universally
accepted as a fair, salutary and often neces-
sary incident of the situation. His retention,
at such time, of all the advantages and op-
portunities afforded by official position may
enable and encourage him, not only to per-
| sst in the rebellious practice complained of.