Sistersville daily oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1902-1905, 1904-12-10
Wins IrnpOr-
tanf Suit
CONTINUED from Page g.

lang AdSC- ihS PO"SA W
is incident to the power to ap-
point, in the absence of some pro-
vision of law fixing the duration
of office and the mode OF re.
moval." And a large number OF
authorities is there cited support
ing the G0ctrir2 thai where the
remove. IS lot for c2Uay, notice is
unnecessary. Henn.E's case,
above cited, was extensively ar,
gued by counsel, and the unani-
nous holding Of the Supreme
court Of the United States is en-
titled to great weight upon the
principles of law herein involved.
Some other cases were cited to
which | may briefly refer. Bagg's
case, II Coke, page SO, does not
apply in this case because it was
not one Of motion but OF dis
REIMBURSEMENT, and, therefore,
does not establish any common
law rule as to notice of an inten-
ton to remove from office. In
Royals case, 5S Grattan, 40, the
notary public was proceeded
against in the courts by writ Of
quo warranto. His removal was
sought on the ground that be-
cause of violation of the dueling
law ne was ineligible to hold any
office. Nothing in this case was
said as to his removal by the ap-
pointing power. Wizards Appeal
4 Rhode Island, 595, presents a
peculiar situation. 1t seems that
at the time of the decision in this
case that by the law of Rhode Is
land in school case an appeal
from the action of the school COM
mittee was allowed to the Com
missioner of Public Schools, and
at the hearing before commits
sioner either party could require
submission of the matter to the
Chief Justice of the State. In
this case John H. Willard was
clerk of the School committee of
North Providence, and by resolu-
ton his office was declared va
cant, and P. B. Shines, Jr., was
elected to fill his place. He ap-
pealed to the Commissioner of
Public Schools from the vote de-
claring his office vacant. The
commissioner held that the vote
was void, and on submission of
the matter to Chief Justice Ames
this holding was upheld. That
part of the opinion of the Com
missioner of Public Schools which
is of interest in this case is as fol
lows: 81 am of opinion that the
school law (see sections 9 and 1O)
makes the election of chairman
and clerk necessary to legal Or
ganization or committee, and the
law nowhere gives to the commit
tee any power whatever to re-
move it's officers. This removal
can, therefore, only be made for
cause and in the same manner as
any other officer elected for a
specified time could be removed
This must be by trial and after
notice" From this it is apparent
that the clerk was elected Tor a
specified time and, therefore, his
term is not at the pleasure of the
appointing power, so that. the de-
cision in the Willard case does not
throw any light whatever upon
the controversy in this case.
Bouldin's case, 6 Leigh, $50, con-
tains full discussion of the pow
er to appoint. This case was
cited and approved in McDougal
VS.. Gulgan, II Grattan, l36, and
was distinguished in Lewis VS..
Whipple, II Virginia, 423. The
case of the Town of Davis VS..
Filler, AZ W. Va, Alb, is in line
with these authorities.
From the foregoing and other
authorities l am of opinion that
in the absence of constitutional
or legislative provision, the pow
er Of removing an official is Incl
dent to the power of appointing
him; that where the tenure of Of
flee is fixed, removal must be for
cause and upon notice, with an
opportunity for hearing; that
where the term is indefinite the
appointee holds at the pleasure of
the appointing power, and that he