Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-08-10

an elective Office may as readily COM
NIT malfeasance in Office as he
could had he been elected to the office,
and SO an officer holding an Office |
that is only appointive may be just
as liable to commit such an offense
The object of legislation like that
attempted to be accomplished by the
sections of the Act relating to elect
for 8" herein in question, is to protect
the public from corrupt and neglect
FIJI officials by removing them from
Office. tThurston VS. CLARK LOT Cal.
28S: Pointing VS. Isaman Idaho, 90
Pac. 6S0) That this purpose has no
proper relationship to that of elections
| is too clearly manifest to require any
extended discussion.
1 Counsel for respondent argues, how
ever, that by reason of the provisions
] of section of Article VII of the State
Constitution, the Legislature has
power to enadt legislation fer req
moyal of officers guilty of malfeas-
| ance or nonfeasance in Office in what
ever manner it sees fit, and that, there
FORE the sections of the "Adt relating
to elections" here in question, hay-
ing been enacted in pursuance of this
provision of the constitution, are valid,
The constitutional provision referred to
is as follows: Provision shall be
made by law for the removal from
office of an civil officer, other than
those in this article previously specl-
fed, for malfeasance or nonfeasance
in the performance of his duties.
While the trainers of the constitution
fv0d ty,,r 81 -
flying in the organic law of the state
provision requiring the Legislature
to enact laws for the removal of all
fofficers guilty of malfeasance or nom
feasance in Office. other than those
! w4ose removal was specified in the
constitution to be accomplished by i'm
parchment, it was never intended that
such law or laws could be enacted
differently from the method prescribed
for the enactmeng of laws generally.
Under the constitutional provision
mentioned. the Legislature is free TO
provide whatever proceedings for the
removal of guilty public officers it
deems most advantageous for the pub
+. lie good, so long as it does not in SUCH
) enactment violefe other constitutional
provisions. There is nothing in the
/. constitution itself lndica:>slg any other
purpose and reason does Nor dictate
why there should be any exception
) in the case of this character of law.
E While the conclusion reached is,
that the sections of THE Act, under
l which the proceedings sought to be
t prohibited were instituy ed, relate to a
: subject foreign TO that expressed in
. the title Of the Act in which they are
5 found. and that. hence, they are void,
l it is proper to note that the effect
: of this decision is not to hold invalid
4 all provisions of law enacted for the
, trial of those. charged with, and the
!. punishment of those who are found
guilty of malfeasance or nonfeasance
: in office. Some of the acts relating tC
Il particular county officers certain pro
visions for the Indictment and remov-
al fom office of the official who NAV
!, be found guilty of a misdemeanor IL
office. Estate VS.. Borowsky II New
! 49, The Act relating to officers gen
It orally contains many provisions defini
e tive Of offenses hereunder and pro
t viding punishments therefor. Tho
h general criminal practice Act !
d this State provides in its first
/ section that: "A crime or public of
S tense is an act or omission forbidden
y by law. and to which is annexed OF
conviction: X X Fourth: he
= moval from Office compiled Law
r Sec. 1885, Section 6S of the Act las
$ mentioned provides that. AN accu
J sation in writing against any distric'
"a county or township officers ma,
be presented by the gram
Z jury of the county for wflicI
the officer accused is electe
u Or appointed" The sections immediat,
Il ly following. Compiled Laws SEES
= EA9S y 1851, inclusive.) provide fc
, the hearing of objections to the SUI
u ficiency Of the indictment for trial b
=, jury for judgment upon conviction, c
- removal from Office and the right of al
peal to Supreme Court. Should thes
s. various provisions of law, to whic
re attention has been directed. be deeme
70 INADEQUATE by the Legislature to pr:
:. vide a sufficient remedy for the publ
against unworthy or corrupt official
Is additional legislation upon the subje
IL will doubtless be enacted
writ will &c cd far