Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1909-10-07
POWER To DISMISS
RESTS WITH HEAD
SUCH is DETERMINATION OF ST.
PREME COURT IN WAGNER
DAHL CASE.
HIGHEST TRIBUNAL PRESUMES
THAT PUBLIC OFFICIALS WILL
ACT HoNoRABLY.
Madison, Oct. 6

A1dulSOI, OCI. ..
That the head of a department of
state may dismiss a subordinate for
cause, without review, is now the law
of Wisconsin, confirmed by its SUI
preme tribunal. That the public of.
| ficers of the state will not violate
their oaths of office for the purpose OF
displacing an employee is also pre-
sumed and that the absolute power OF
| discharge is given to heads of depart
ments is written into the law.
Affirming the decision of the circuit
court of Dane county in the case of
the state ex rel Adolph H. Wagner
against Andrew H. Dahl, state treas
urer the supreme court decided yes
terday that it is for the appointing
officer to determine the justice OF
cause of removal 1t is a we'll nigh
universal rule that where no definite
term of Office is fixed by law, the pow
er to remove an incumbent is an Incl
dent to the power to appoint; that our
law does not regard an office as a
property right; neither is the right
to hold office a vested one.
The case is that of AdOlph H. Wag-
ner employed as bookkeeper in the
office of State Treasurer A. H. Dahl.
IncOmpetency and INSTRUMENTATION
were the causes assigned for removal
and Wagner procured an alternative
writ of mandamus ordering Treasurer
Dahl to reinstate him. Treasurer
Dahl went into court and justified his
action on the grounds stated and an
issue was made up and the question
submitted to a jury which found Wag-
ner incompetent and did not perform
the lawful directions given him.
Judgment was entered for Dahl and
Wagner appealed to the supreme
court.
In it's opinion the court says:
1--WE can see nothing in the civil
service law that would warrant giving
it any other Interpretation from that
almost uniformly given to other acts
involving situations similar to the one
presently under consideration. The
purpose of the legislature in passing
ceive how the conclusion reached will
operate to defeat or impair that pur-
nose. 1t is not to be presumed that
officers to whom the people OF the
state have entrusted important pubic
functions will violate their Oaths or
Office and become perjurers because
thew want to remove one emplOye 10
make place for another. In case OF
removal. the right of selection is or
dinarily limited to choosing a success
sOr from one of three names ceruhed
nv the civil service commission. Inc
presumption is that public officers Will
Obpv the law and will not voluntarily
and criminally violate them and the
legislature may have had in nina
the advisability of placing the apso-
fute mower of discharge for just cause
in the heads of departments, so that
high degree of efficiency and discI-
pIine might be maintained and the
public business transacted with rea-
sonable DrOmptness. x The treas
urer acted within his jurisdiction IN
making the removal for the causes
specified, and there is nothing to SHOW
that he acted arbitrarily or otherwise
than in perfect good faith in making
it. Whether he was right or wrong
in reaching the conclusion which he
did on the facts is not a question for
the courts to decide"
The decision has created at least a
ruffie of disturbance in the state house
and some uneasy heads are noted III
the ranks of those who serve the
state persistentIy if not well.