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

Judge M. Ill. Dent, OF the Supreme
Court Of Appeals has issued the fol-
lowing open letter anent the recent
decision of the Court in the case of
DR.. j. w. Hartigan against the Re
gents Of the University The facts
stated IN this letter make mighty
interesting reading
For reasons known only to them
selves nv associates denied me
knowledge and inspection of their
opinion and syllabus until after it
was handed down or became public
property. This is matter OF judi
clal courtesy or ethics, and as
learned Judge has said that courte-
sy is a mere matter of taste about
which there is no disputing and from
which there is no appeal since duel
ling has been abolished, every judge
has the right to treat his eonfreres
as he sees proper according to his
inward consciousness and outward
experience. Not having been adj
mitted to their exclusive eonsulta-
tions over, nor been made aware of
their written conclusions until after
given to the public, | deem it my
duty to review these conclusions, as
some of them appear to me to be
plainly violative of the true principles
of law and justice, and the opinion
as a whole to be evasive, inconclu
sive and unsatisfactory as an expo
sition of sound law, although an ad
mirable paper for other purposes. 1t
asserts that the University belongs
to the executive department of the
state government with which the
courts have no right to interfere;
that professor IS not an officer, and
therefore has DO rights under con
stitutional or statutory law which
the courts may protect, and, it an
officer, that there are many decisions
which hold that officers may be re-
moved without notice or hearing
These decisions are then quoted and
commented on as authority, although
they have been rejected long since
by the best authorities both courts
and text writer's including this court.
Ankle vs. Comms, cited. OF these
decisions Judge Champlin in the
leading case OF Dullam vs.. Wilson,
SO Mich, 407, says: Il have exam
med carefully the authorities cited
in the brief of the learned counsel
for relator in support OF the position
that no notice is required to be CIV
en- and that the action of the execu-
tive is final and conclusive 1t is
sufficient to say without commenting
specially upon them that the reason
ing of those cases does not commend
itself to my judgment. They APP
pear to be opposed not only to the
decided weight Of authority, but also
to the fundamental principles of JUS
tice." The same language is per-
fectly applicable to the opinion of
the majority in the present case, for
it is certainly opposed to the decid
ed weight of authority and also to
the fundamental principles of JUS
tice.
The case OF Dullam vs. Wilson,
cited, furnishes complete refuta
ton to the material points in the
opinion under consideration too
plain to be misunderstood and with
argument thorough, convincing and
upanswerable.
The subject of controversy was
the power of the Governor Of the
State to remove trustee Of the Deaf
and Dumb Asylum without notice
and hearing. The court took juris-
diction on the grounds that the pow
er Of removal from Office was Judi
cial function and subject to review
of the court without regard to the
officer, court or board on whom the
power was conferred
Judge Campbell in his able. con
vincing and concurring opinion, on
page 400, says. 1T is further in
sisted that it is not within the pow
er Of the Judiciary to review or sit IN
judgment upon the action of the ex-
ecutive, which must be respected as