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

| the public treasury and more nearly
a public officer in all respects than
an attorney at law recognized to be a
quasi public officer
But whether his position is public
or private If he has vested right
to enjoy the same IN which his means
of living and professional reputation
are involved, he cannot be Invested
thereof except by due process of law,
which necessarily includes notice
and hearing before condemnation or
judicial Investigation and Judgment.
| This question must be determined
from the law authorizing the estab
lishmenl of such professorships
The law provides for their establish
nent and then further provides that
the incumbents may be removed
from office for good cause by ma
jority OF all the Regents after due
notice given to each one of them of
the time, place and object of the
meeting and further that they shall
report to the Governor any such re-
moval with the reasons therefor.
This law becomes part of the pro
fessor's appointment and controls
the same whether it be regarded as
an appointment or strictly con
traotual relation and the Regents
cannot make any binding arrange
ments or contracts subyersive there.
of. 1t they do such arrangements or
contracts are void and not binding on
either the regents or the professor.
Head vs. University, 10 Wall $50.
The law says TO the candidate ac-
cept this professorship and you shall
not be removed therefrom except for
good cause ascertained and determined
by majority of the Regents in which
such majority concars at meeting
OF which all the Regents have been
given notice that its purpose is to re-
move such professor. Now it is
claimed that because such professor
ship is not strictly speaking a public
Office that the words .for good cause
means at pleasure when taken togeth.
er with the requirement. OF report
TO the Governor.
How such report required can
change the meaning of these words
from sgood cause TO sat the pleas
ure' is certainly incomprehensible
This report is intended for check on
the Regents for the good Of the Uni
yersity and the public, but how it
can enlarge their powers and take
away the rights Of theprofessor to hold
the office until he has been legally re-
moved it is impossible to perceive. 1t
is virtually conceded that il the pro-
fessorship could be called public Of
flee there would have to be notice and
hearing, but because it is mere public
service the construction of the words
must be different. 1t cannot be de-
MED that the legislature had the
power to make these professorships
quasi public offices Ia respect to the
removal of the incumbents and the
Legislature did use the necessary lam
guage for this purpose why then must
it be construed TO mean something
else by the courts? Why should the
words for 'good cause" mean for
good cause" whea applied to public
officers and not mean s'good cause
when applied to other public servants
or agents? Why should they 10 one
case limit the power of removal and
IN other case mean absolutely moth
ing? Why in one case should they
vest rights and Id another case ope-
ate TO diyest them? Such construc-
| tiop nc thie ic unraacauabl a apa m
| just and is an abomination in the
sight of the people that cannot be too
severely condemned. 1t is Legisla-
tion by the court subyersive of the
powers Of the Legislature. 1t per-
mits the state through its Legislature
to confer right and after it has been
accepted and becomes vested and the
incumbents living and reputation are
dependent thereon, TO withdraw IL to
his great injury without redress But
it is said there is no procedure pro-
vided for ascertaining good cause
and the board are the final judges as
to what is good cause" This argu-
ment is taken from the repudiated
case Of iHoboken vs. Greer 3 Butcher
IN. j. Law 265, which is entirely
overruled by Haight VS. Love, 80 N.
j. Law IA. When the Legislature
gives the right the law OF the land
furnishes the procedure and while the
Regents may decide what is 'sgood
cause such cause must he 'sjust
cause and such determination as to
the existence OF such cause is RENEWAL
by the proper judicial authority as it
affects the personal rights Of an indi-
vidual. In the case Of Common
wealth VS. Slifer, % Penn. ST., %
Chief Justice Lewis answers just such
an objection urged by saying sit is
true that the executive is made the
judge and that his ,'apinion" or julg-
ment is conclusive 50 far as relates to
tt question Of removal. But that
JUDGMENT Is not to be pronounced
without notice, without any charge or
Specification and without opportunity
gigeu 30 the officer TO make his de-
feflsf Tho rafaufa tioD and tho rioht