Albuquerque weekly citizen. (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1891-19??, 1903-08-08

l lure lOT tue ItuONdi VI Counly oHCtIb
is certainly a righLlul subject of legis.
lation and Is legal unless prohibited
/ by the Constitution OF the United
States or some act of congress.
! II Is contended that the act remov-
| ing ar. Sandoval as assessor Is IN
conflict with the 14th Amendment OF
! the Constitution of the United States.
which Is as follows:
mo state shall deprive any person
OF life, liberty or property without due
/ process OF law; nor 1eny to any per-
son within Its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the law"
1t is contended by the learned coun.
sci for the solicitor general that Mr..
aandoval had oeen deprived OF his
| property without due process of law.
in other WORDS, Mr.. Sandoval's title
to the ctiice md Its emoluments for
the full term OF two years was YES
ted right which IS protected by the
said 18th Amendment, unless the said
Sandoval was removed by a court OF
competent Jurisdiction after having
had a fair and impartial trial and a
full opportunity to make his defense,
and In support of this proposition OF
law, the learned counsel cites,
Kennard vs. Louisiana, 92 U. s.,
$50:
Foster VS.. Kansas, l12 ". s.,
201.
Did the supreme court of the United
States In Kennard VS.. Louisiana or
| Foster VS.. Kansas, supra. thus declare
the law! In the celebrated Goebel
case, entitled Taylor and Marshall VS..
Beckham, 17S U. s., 54s. quoting from
pag9 Ell:
so in Kennard VS.. Louisiana. 92 U.
s.. 4s0. concerning the right of Ken.
nard to the Office Of associate justice
of the supreme court of Louisiana.
| jurisdiction was taken on the ground
that the const!tutionality o. the stat
ute under which the disputed title to
office was tried was drawn In question.
The court, speaking by MIR. Chief JUS
tice Waite, said: The question be-
/ fore us Is, not whether the courts be-
( low, having jurisdiction OF the case
and the parties. have followed the law,
but whether the law, II followed, would
have furnished kennard the protec.
/ ton guaranteed by the constitution, Ir.
| Irregularities and more errors in the
/ proceedings can only be corrected in
the state courts. Our authority does
not extend beyond an examination Of
/ the power of the courts below to pro
coed at all"
! The writ OF Foster VS.. Kansas, l12
| U. s., POI, rested on thc same ground.
In each of the foregoing cases, the
! determination of the right to the Of
| fees In dispute was repcsed In the
! judicial courts. and no question was
! expressly considered by this court as
to whether the right to a public Office
of a state was or was not protected by
the fourteenth amendment.
In North Carolina, the Legislature
created the office OF state railroad com.
missioner. The statute also provided
that such "oiiice might be suspended
! by the governor and his successor ap-
pointed by the governor" In Wilson
VS.. North Carolina. 1853 u. S.. 593, the
governor removed by suspending
without a hearing, Mr.. Wilson as state
railroad commissioner and appointed
one Caldwell to nj the vacancy. Mr.
Wilso. contended this was In conflict
with the fourteenth amendment OF the
constitution Z. the United States. In
this case the court said:
What kind and how muca Of a
hearing the officer should have before
suspension by the governor was a mat
ter for the state legislature to deter
mine. having regard to the constitu
ton OF the state. The procedure pro
vided by a valid state law for the pur
pose of changing tie incumbent of q
state Office will not In general involve
any question for review by this court
The court further said.
mo such fundamental rights were
involved In the proceedings before
the governor. In its internal admin
istration the state ESQ far as concerns
the federal government has entire
freedom OF choice as to the terms up
on which II SHAH be held by the per
son filling the Office"
ihe court further said:
Although an office has been held
In North Carolina to be generally anc
In a certain restricted sense the prop
erty Of the incumbent, yet In this cast
the supreme court held that the In
cumDent. In taking the office. holds II
subject to the act creating 1t, which
binas him by all its provisions, all Of
which were held to be valid"
In Taylor and Marshall VS.. Beck
ham. supra. discussing the relation o.
an officer to the appointing or eiectinl
power. the supreme court OF the Unit
ed States says:
IN Crenshaw vs.. United States, 49,
u. s. 80, 104, Mr. Justice Lamar stat
ed the primary question In the cas-,
to be: Whether an officer appointed
for definite time or during good be
havior had any vested interest or con
tract right in his Office OF which con
gress could not deprive him" Ant
he said. speskin OF the court, 9Th,