The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1902-04-22

remembered lNak liiS lN not tue rue I'D
most of the states: and although IL Is
virtually true as TO federal appon'ces.
except those holding life tcnures, the
fResident is Unrestricted. Therefore,
the most that can be said OF the con-
tention is that such is the rule fsorle
states where not restricted by statu-
tory or constitutional iuhibtions. But
even IN the absence of statues author
izing removals for cause only. 1t can.
] think, now be said that the general
rule is the other way. where the officer
IS appointed for a fixed term As TO
which should be the law. in the absence
OF statutory or constitutional rcstric-
tions. express no opinion
In this case. the power to appoint
was exhausted by the appointments
made by Governor Barnes and tho
appointments having been made, no
other persons could legally be ap-
pointed under any theory OF the law
until vacancy occurred BY death.
resignation OF removal either by ex-
press order or by implication. This
theory is supported by authority.
In fact it is the universal rule that.
where the constitution or statute au-
/ thorizing removals for certain causes.
( il amounts to q prohibition OF removals
Tor any ther cause or without cause,
and such statutes must be strictly fol-
owed: and most OF the states hold THAI
notice and a hearing is necessary; but
there IS some authority to the effect
that If the cause exists it NAV be ex-
4 srclsed without notice.
ne organic act OF Oklahoma makes
no provision for the removal OF ter
ritorial officers by the governor. but
4 the Legislature has taken up the matter
and spoken in unequivocal terms, and
where constitution is silent upon such
matters. the legislature has the un-
doubted ri1hs and power to say what
shall be cause for removing a public
/ officer Let us notice the language OF
{ our own statute:
Statues Of 1893, Section so74. The
governor shall nominate, and by and
with the advice and consent OF the
council Expressed by majority OF all
OF the councillors elected. voting by
yeas and nays) appoint and commission
all territorial officers"
Section so7s provides for the filing
of vacancies by the governor during
vacations of the legislature
Section 500:
'1ne governorshall have power to
remove any officer SO appointed by
4 him in case of incompetence neglect
Of duty, or malieasance in Office any
may then fill the same as provided in
cases OF vacancy"
BY this last section the governor can
only remove an officer for incompeten-
| cy, neglect of duty. or malieasance in
Office Were the members OF the first
committee guilty OF any OF these? 1t
is expressly stipulatd and agreed by
the parties TO this action that they
were not And, further, ,he governor
says in his letter 10 them; Il do not
wish 10 intimate that the old commit
tee was biased or that would have
oone other than carry out the inten-
ton OF the legislature as nearly as they
were able TO know what that was.
This language comedies good faith OF
the part of the old committee and it
admitted that thev were honestly dis.
4 -: ging the duties OF their office. I'm
der such conditions the governor haC
no power to emoye them II is sale
by the law writer's that: "An officer
not trbitrarily removable by the ap
iNOlliAiAAk NOMNif AnAlllOL DC mum GAAll lE
moved bv th rccision or revocation o
his appointment after its completoi
and acceptance. The power to remoyl
for cause, when conferred upon an OF
Eeer or board must be strictly con
strued and confirmed within the limit
prescribed by it."
2 But It IS unnecessary TO cite author
7 tiles The territorial statutes are plan
, and positive A public officer can onl
: be removed for one or moe OF tn
causes stated therein and an officer re
| movable for cause only is nos remova
} Bic at wiia The legislature has spoke
and on this matter its Will is suprem,
E Counsel for defendants have cited
: number Of authorities which held tina
7 the appointing power has the right {
remove, but in none of these case
: does 1t appear that the state in whic
the decision was rendered had a stat
ute 10 the effect that officers can b
! removed Tor certain specified cause
Ii will not be denied that clerks OF IN
United States district courts and a
other officers who simply hold at wi
can be removed at the pleasure OF tn
appointing power. This, however,
not that kind Of case. he governo
could not remove the committee unde
the facts presented; and hence ther
was no vacancy, and the second com
mittee had absolutely no power to lc
cate a site for the institution in ques
tion. The case OF Cameron vs.. Park
er, end Ok, Ell, goes no further tina
10 hold that an onicer can be remove
for cause named in the statute afte
/ notice and hearing. But even to thi
| doctrine Chief Jutsice Dale and Bui
ford. J., dissenting.
One other point remains undecided
| 1t is contended by the defendants tina
this case involves the right OF coul
OF equity to enioin the removal OF
public officer incidentally this coui
iS compelled TO determine as to whetl
er certin officers have been legal
/ removed, ana as to whether thos