The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-12-17
.M.ECAARDEN Is OUT.
THE GOVERNORS
ACTION
IMPORTANT AS a PRECEDENT
Justice Lovely Holds That Power of
Removal Implies Power, of
Suspension within Gov
erpor,s Discretion.

sofa is concerned, Sheriff Philip Megaar-
den, of minneapolis, is all in. That body
yesterday handed down a decision up
holding the action of Gov. Van SAINT III
suspending the sheriff from Office pend
ing his investigation; Thus Megaarden
loses the first and most important round
in his battle for official life. Megaarden's
attorneys had great hopes of winning out
on this preliminary contention, and 81
victory would have given them great en-
couragement. But Justice Lovely; who
writes the order in the case, says that
it is within the discretion of the gov
ernor to, suspend an official whom he
may remove under the law.
The court orders a writ OF custer %
be issued by the clerk in compliance with
the request of the attorney general,
Coroner Williams, appointed to the va
cancy by the governor will serve the
writ upon Megaarden and take charge of
the office, pending the investigation now
in operation. When the report of the in
vestigating committee is made to the
governor he will decide whether it con-
st1tutes sufficient grounds for Megaar-
denis removal. The syllabus in the case
is as follows:
State of Minnesota ex rel. w. B.. Douglas.
attorney general, relator, vs. Philip I.
Megaarden, respondent. -
l. The governor has authority to re-
move "a sheriff from Office, whenever it
appears by competent evidence that such;
oftcer has been guilty of malfeasancey or,
nonfeasance in the performance of his
off'clas duties upon proceedings. provided
for in chapters 1913 to 500 inclusive G. 5.
1894 20.
2. IE the enactments referred to no
provision is to be found authorizing the
suspension of a sheriff pending proceed
ings for his removal, but that. power i'm
pbedly exists as incidental to the execu-
tive authority to remove, and may be
exercised by the governor in a proper
case.
8. The power to suspend an officer dur
ing investigation under the statutory
provisions referred to is not arbitrary,
but involves the exercise of discretion
aid good Judgment by the governor and
may or may not be exercised, as a wise
exercise of such judgment and discretion,
and shall indicate public necessity for
the order Of suspension.
Justice Lovely Comments.
After giving a synopsis of the case,
Justice Lovely says: Z
1t is claimed by the statement in the
report Of the public examiner it does not
appear that the alleged acts of malfeas-
ance occurred during respondents pres
ent term of office.
II is only necessary to say with refer
ence to this claim that the office of sher-
as so important that such official will
be recognized in ALL the courts, of his
state, and his appointment or retirement
from office need not fbe proved. Hence
this court will take judicial notice that
respondent was in fact holding such office
Tor the term previous to 1901
With regard to the claim that an in
Yest1gation in removal proceedings. can
not take knowledge of misconduct pre-
v1cUs to the present term, the court
says;
We cannot hold this contention well
taken in this cast. Many charges by
the public examiner relating to the tern,
previous to the sheriff's incumbencv- are
OF the same nature as one specified act
occurring during his present term and
1t is further stated in the information
that large. sums of money illegally col
leeted during the previous years are still
retained.
Without entering into details we are
satisfied 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 au-
thorize an investigation
Inc court then comes down to the real
point at lssues7the governors power to
suspend pending an investigation. The
ferred by the laws, explicitly. 1t should
be clearly expressed, and the revision
commission is recommended to include
such a provision in the statutes.
II the absence of direct law on the
subject, the court relies on a Missouri
decision, 16 Mo- App 1885, 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 fair. salutary
ana often necessary incident of the SIT
uatlen. His retention, at such time, of
all the advantages and opportunities af-
~
and encourage him. not only TO per.
sist in the rebellious practice complained
of, but also to seriously embarrass his
triers in their approaches to the end of
justice.
The reasons stated seem so essential
to complete and thorough investigation
of an official charged with misconduct
as to furnish an anaaswerable argument
to. the claim of the respondent that the
MINOR light to suspend Is not included
In the major authority to remove.
a peter Illustration of the necessity
OF holding that such incidental right ex-
lists cannot be made than in the case of
county.
1t may be said that 1t is a great hard
snip upon an accused official to be de-
pr1Ved OF his fees and emoluments, bur
the answer to this suggestion is, that he
takes ofnce and retains it cum onere and
must accept its burdens with it's benefits
The order to suspend should not preju-
alce tne respondent in any respect. He
is entitled to fair hearing with all the
presumptions OF innocence and good in
tentfons in his favor. These ought to
continue until the termination of the in
Yesugatlon and the final action of the
governor but we are compelled to adopt
the view that to give the power of re-
mcyal practical effect it must be held
IN a proper case to be left to executive
discretion and judgment to include the
authority to direct the temporary sus-
pension of the official which was ordered
IN this case. Let the writ of custer is
sue as prayed for