Watertown leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1909-1911, 1909-10-08
STATE OFFICIAL
POWER ABSOLUTE,
DECLARES COURT
DECISION IN DAHL WAGNER CASE
ESTABLISHES MOOTED POINT
IN CIVIL SERVICE.
TREASURER Is MUCH PLEASED.
Says That Report of Supreme Court
Finding VIII Have Far Reach
ing Effect.
HONESTY PRESUMED, SAY JUDGES

MADISON. Wis, Oct IL Special
IT is now well established principle
that neither the courts nor the civil
service commission has any right to
mass upon the prerOgative of head of
state department to dismiss subor-
diua+q for cause The supreme court
in deciding the case of Adolph ii. Wag-
nor against State Treasurer A. ii. Dahl
Tuesday. defines the power Of such su-
ueriol. ms absolute. The tribunal takes
lie ground that it is assumed that the
public officers Of the state VIII not Ylo-
iate their oaths Of office for the purpose
of displacing an cmpioye. The intent
az the civil service law, it is declared,
never contemplated placing depart
meDt head To the necessity of going INTO
court every time he feels Obliged to
dismiss an cmpioyc, and 10 stand for q
large expense in SO doing. Neither dld
ii give the civil service commission such
power of review.
Wagner was removed for insubordina-
ton and incompetcncy. lie then secured
q writ of mandamus ordering Treasurer
Dahl 10 renstate him. Mr. DAM took
the case into the circuit court here, and
n Jury found Wagner insubOrdInate and
incompetent. sustaining the treasurer en-
trely Wagner appealed to the supreme
court.
treasurer DdnfS bOUlIHtHL.
Commenting upon the supreme courts
ruling, Mr.. Dahl said
II ann very much pleased, indeed with
the decision As citizen of this state
/ am pleased to know that the public
service of the state will not in the flu
ture be hampered by the retention in
office Of employees who are insubOrdi-
nate, incompetent or impolite, simply be
cause n civil service law protects them
fx.~ l,o Of, 10
partment 20 suffer the humiliation of a
lawsuit with the costs incident thereto,
to be paid from his own pocket, as |
have been forced to do in discharging
unworthy employees.
'"The civil service law is now as it was
intended to be when it was pasSed-as
the author of the bill, the intrOducer of
the hill and those who supported the bill
understood it to be. The court decision
has corrected the ridiculous and extreme
lv absurd provision of the law and il is
now sane and reasonable. Our law is
now III conformity with the laws on this
subject in all other states and with the
federal law | recommended this change
in the law in my biennial report for
19O7-S and drafted a bill along those
lines and presented it to the last Legis!a-
ture, but that body refused to correct the
evil.
1.-THE competent and well-behaved sub
ordinate has nothing to fear and needs
no law to bolster him up and keep hitn
in the service; the other fellow will learn
that passing an examination and secUr-
ing an appointment to office does not
necessarily mean that he is secure for
life. unless he proves himself competent
and deserving.
Opinion of the Court
In its opinion the court said in part
I'VE can see nothing in the civil sery-
ice law that would warrant giving it any
other Interpretation from that almost
uniformly given TO other acts involving
situations similar to the one under con-
sideration The purpose of the Legisla-
ture in passing the act was apparent.
We do not perceive how the conclusion
reached viii operate to defeat or impair
that purpose. 1t is not to be presumed
that officers to whom the people of the
state have entrusted important public
functions will violate their Oaths of Office
and become perjurers because they want
to remove one employe to make place for
another"