Audubon Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Iowa) 1894-1925, 1907-11-28

attorneys for a failure or refusal 20
enforce the provisions Of the chapter
relating to the mulct tax, and cite In
support of this contention the fact
that the law as originally enacted
was more general In It's provisions
and authorized the district court or
any Judge thereof, to remove any
county attorney for failure to perform
any Of the duties enjoined upon him
under the provisions Of the mulct
law; but whether this contention is
sound or not. there is ample authority
for removing county attorneys or
other officers from Office for neglect or
failure to enforce the mulct law,
found In chapter 8. title 6 OF the
code, the provisions of which are
general In their nature and apply to
all county. township. city and town
officers.
For Nonfeasanee In Office.
In addition to the other grounds
specified therein, said chapter pro-
vides that officers may be removed for
habitual or willful neglect Of duty
for corruption, and for willful miscon-
duct or maladministration in Office.
Section 1852 of the code provides,
that any resident of the county, city
or town of which the person to be
charged Is an officer may make COM
plant by a petition in the district
court. II further provides. that the
county attorney shall file such petit
ton whenever he believes there is just
cause therefor, and may be required
to do so by the court or judge thereof.
Section 1853 provides for notice to
the accused; section 1854 provides
that the action shall be tried as law
action. and that all the proceedings
shall, as near as may be, conform to
the rules governing the trial OF such
action.
1t is perfectly apparent that there Is
material difference between the pro-
cedure In the Iowa law and the Mime
sofa law, and that the attorney gen.
eral of Minnesota Is given great deal
more power and authority by statute
than is conferred upon the attorney
general Of Iowa.
State VIII Act.
In this state, however, the attor-
ney general unquestionably has the
authority to appear In any case in
which the state is party or In which
1t has an interest. No one, think
though, would contend that as this
department is now organized, with a
contingent fund OF only $500 per an
mum over and above an amount suf-
ficient to pay the regular help, 1t
would be physically possible, or that
it is his duty to appear for the state
before committing magistrates in the
prosecution of persons charged with
indictable offenses, nor even to assist
in the prosecution of such persons in
the district court after an indictment
unless the case was of unusual public
interest, and then only when requested
to do so by the governor, executive
counsel. or general assembly; and in
this connection it is proper to say that
at the beginning of the term of the
present attorney general the governor
called attention to the necessity of a
better enforcement of the laws of the
state, and requested and authorized
the department to take such action az
was deemed best in all matters with
respect to law enforcement.
without extending this statemens
further. 1t is my judgment, In which
the governor concurs. that there ID
sufficient authority under our statute
to authorize the attorney general to
appear and prosecute any action
brought in the name of the state for
the removal of any county attorney.
or other officer when the county at
torney refuses to prosecute, for NAL
feasance or nonfeasance In Office; and
this department stands ready to prose-
cute in all such cases upon proper COM
plant by any responsible resident OF
the county or city Of which the per.
son charged Is an officer.
Respectfully,
II. w. Byers.