Sistersville daily oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1902-1905, 1904-12-10
Wins ImpOr-
fdnf Suit

O. w. 0. Hardman and 5. u. Pyle
from the office of Commissioner
of Accounts for Tyler county and
appointed others in their stead.
Their right to do so is virtually
confirmed by the opinion of Judge
Willis found below:
E. A. Durham
VS.. Upon Mandamus.
The County Court OF Tyler.
There are no disputed ques-
tons of fact in this case, and it
has been submitted upon motion
to uuash the alternative writ, and
involves the examination Of a SIN
gle disputed question of law, VIZ:
the nower of the County court at
it's pleasure and without notice
to remove a Commissioner OF Ac-
counts who had been Heretofore
appointed by it and to appoint an
other in his place. The power to
remove for cause and upon no
tice cannot be successfully disput-
ed, and is in harmony with the
spirit of our laws. In this case
the removal was without notice
and without cause. Did the
County court exceed it's powers
in so doingY 1t is admitted that
the act providing for the appoint
ment of Commissioners OF Ac-
counts by the County court IS 81,
lent as to the term of office and
the method of removal. The ma
ture Of the office of Commissioner
of Accounts has been referred to,
and the question as to whether
it is a ministerial or judicial OF
flee has been argued. 1t must be
admitted that in many respects
the office is in it's nature, judicial;
but this conclusion does not dis
pose of the difficulties IN TINS
case. While it is conceded that
an incumbent of a mere minister
ial office may be removed at the
pleasure of the appointed power
when there are no constitutional
or statutory provisions in the way
vet in the cases cited by counsel
it would be found that some OF
the officers who have been so re-
moved exercised some judicial
powers. While the clerk OF a
court is. ordinarily, ministerial
officer, yet he is in some instances
a judicial officer, and | cannot
draw, in reference to the power
of removal, a line of distinction
between ministerial officers and
judicial officers. While the spirit
of our laws is aimed to secure the
freedom and independence OF the
judiciary, yet in our State no Ju-
dical officer holds for life. And IN
the United States wherever a life
tenure in a judicial office is
found, such tenure is created by
express provisions. l believe that
the spirit of our laws is against
life tenure in office, unless it be
expressly authorized and provid-
ed for.
The ancient common law Of
fees in England, in the absence of
a fixed term, were held, by lmme-
mortal usage, to be of life tenure.
This doctrine does not apply to
offices in the United States ere
ated by statute, because there can
be no such immemorial usage. In
England under the common law
there was an estate, a property
in an office; here it is not so, no
esetate or property in an office.
All offices are held for the benefit
of the community in which their
functions are exercised. Even in
England a differnt rule prevails
as to modern offices created by
act of Parliament, namely, that
the tenure of such an office is dur
ing it's pleasure, and that a new
appointment to it revokes the
first appointment. In Hennen s
case, 10 Peters, 23O, it is held: ut
cannot be admitted that it was
the intention of the Constitution
that those offices which are de-
nominated inferior offices should
be held during life. In the alb
sence of all constitutional or OF
statutory provision as to the re-
moval of such officers it would
L