Bismarck daily tribune., 1908-09-24
REMOVAL OF OFFICERS.

REMOVAL OF OFFICERS.
One of the planks of the Demo
cratic state platform declares in fav-
or of a law giving the governor of
the state power to remove executive
officers, not subject to impeachment,
for ..twilful neglect of duty" That
plank is being supported by Demo-
cratic speakers on the stump in the
state and it is being urged that with
such a law on the statute books the
governor of the state could, upon his
own motion and after hearing at
which he was Judge and jury, re
move any officer not subject to i'm
peachment, whose performance Of
his duty did not meet with executive
approval, thus insuring~ the perform
ance of all oficial duty-to the sat-
isfaction of the governor at@least-
under penalty Of summary dismissal
from Office. Such a law would place
in the hands Of any governor a pow
er beyond anything at present on the
statute books of the state, inasmuch
as it would make all county and
other officers through the state re-
sponsible directly, not to the people
who elected them after the fashion
provided by the laws of the state,
but to the governor of the state,
who would remove them at pleas
ure, as though they were appoint
ave officers, of his own creation.
A law that would give the gov
ernor summary power Of removal
over all executive officers would nee
essarily give him power to sit as
Judge and jury and decide what con-
stituted wilful neglect of duty. And
it would make one officer OF the
state the final arbiter over all the
other officers of the state below the
grade in which impeachment by the
legislature is provided. The law
provides for. impeachment in the case
OF the governor and other state and
-
other executive" officers Of the
state and counties would therefore
/ come within the scope Of such a Law
as is proposed.
In making the constitution and
laws of the state the lawmakers and
the people provided for certain cleo
tive officers, receiving their creden.
tials from the people directly and
charged with the performance OF
certain duties within the scountie:
for which they were elected. The
theory of local self government oper
ated in the making of these distinc
tions between appointave and cleo
tive officers, and this theory is rec
ognized by the supreme court of thu
state in decision handed down las
year in the temperance commissions
case, when the court held that tn
legislature had no power even t.
take away from an elective Office
any part OF the duties entrusted tt
his performance by the people. TIL
supreme court, in an opinion wrii
ten by Judge Fisk, said at tina
time:
@%%::*3.: !. :. :. . 8 I
{. The people in framing the con- :
Z. stitution were careful to safe :
!: guard this right in unmistak- =
I. able terms. by providing. in eff J
= feet that certain public duties /
= should be performed by persons
= elected by them, and among the
I. public duties to be only thus
# y performed are those of states
4. attorneys and sheriffs and the
!. courts of this country have, in
I. an unbroken line Of authorities
&. ever protected such right and
= have never hesitated when oc-
/, casion required it to declare
Z. such legislation null and void
q as being Tio1atiVe of the funda-
{. mental principles of our repub-
y lican form of government
y &. = i. ****
It is eminently right and prope
OF course, that there should be
the people the power to take aw
what they give, should the occasi'
arise through the malfeasanee
neglect Of an elective oficer, a
to this end the people Of the sta
have provided that proceedings m
be begun In the courts for the
moyal Of derelect official from
nee. This gives the accued offic