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

tue ACT Vi an independent co 0rdl-
nate defendant of the government,
subject to no appeal.
1t is undoubtedly true that no
court can review the lawful discre-
ton Of any body that is not court
and that the executive stands in this
respect on the same footing with all
other persons and bodies. But it is
equally true that private rights can
not be subjected by legislative, exec
utive or any other authority to the
unregulated discretion of anyone.
Legal rights can only be Invested by
such measures as are classed under
the laws of the land as due process
of law
Courts IN determining whether
rights exist, or whether vested rights
have ceased to exist do not act nee
essarily or usually as appellate tri-
bunals whose judgments operate on
the tribunals or persons whose inva
sions of right are complained of
They may or may not do SO. But in
constitutional government the ac-
ton OF all persons, official or private,
which is violation of constitution
al rights, is simply null and void and
usually needs no reversal And the
action of any department of govern
ment, whether legislative, executive
or judicial beyond it's jurisdiction or
against the constitutional limits Of
its authority IS in law the same as
If there had been no action and can
not be regarded as having legal eff
feet.
No executive authority exists out
side of the legal boundaries. All of
/ fees must be created in accordance
with law Unless they are held dur.
ing the pleasure of the executive or
subject to removal at his will he
cannot interfere with them except
as the law provides, and if this right
depend on conditions those eondi-
tions must be determined in some
legal way. No right can be subject
to his uncontrolled discretion. And
where as is sometimes the case he
has the duty ofinquiry and decision
he has no power to decide without a
hearing any controversy involving
private rights
The decision is thus made to turn
on the question as to whether the
person complaining had vested
right to exercise the office until he
was deprived thereof by due process
of law.
1t vas not question as to wheth-
er his position was public office,
but it was a question as to his per-
sonal and private right to exercise
the same. Some of the authorities
relied on were not concerning public
offices but school teachers, fellows
in colleges and divines or clergy
men And it is settled law that the
officers of both public and private
corporations cannot be removed from
their office illegally or without due
process of law and if so removed
they can be restored to THEN posi-
tions by mandamus. Angel Il Ames
on corporations, Chap 20, Ohio vs.
Bryce, Z Ohio, Ala An attorney at
law in the case of Mosness, 80 Wis,
500, was held to be a quasi public Of
ficer. Meehan on public officers,
Sec 80 In the case Of ex parte
Garland, 4 Wall, 1913, it was held
that an attorney at law 'could not
be deprived of his office except BY
Judicial, ascertainment after notice
and opportunity to be heard had
been afforded.
The question, therefore, presented
to the court is not whether pro
fessorship is public office, but
whether being in the nature of a
public office the legally invested in
cumbent thereof has such right
therein that hei is entitled to perform
the duties and enjoy the salary
thereto attached until be has been
Invested thereof by due process Of
law He is undoubtedly a public
servant, performing duties for the
public in the education Of its sons