The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1911-01-05

from rage -
and uniform and for full value, to as
sist In the collection Of taxes. and to
furnish the state board Of equalization
with all the Information necessary
to enable them to Justly equalize the
assessment.
Capitol Building
In reference to the capitol building.
can only repeat my recommends
ttons made to the last assembly. I
invite your inspection Of the build.
Ing 30 that you may determine for
yourselves the necessity of the i'm.
provements recommended. There is
no supply Of water for fire protection.
except that contained in two tanks
near the top of the building, which
is not sufficient supply in case of
fire. The tanks frequently leak. spoil
and loosen the plaster and are a
great source of annoyance. There
should be tank or standpipe outside
the building. large enough to furnish
ample protection against fire.
judicial Districts.
In my judgment there should be
REIMBURSEMENT Of the judicial districts
of the state. In some of the eastern
districts of the state the business is
decreasing and there is scarcely
enough Of work to keep one Judge
employed. while in some of the CEN
trail and western districts of the state
the legal business has increased SO
that 1t is impossible for a Judge to
keep abreast Of his work. This is es-
pecially true Of the Ninth and Tenth
districts.
Executive.
Among the recommendations made
to the Eleventh legislative assembly,
was one for the enactment of law
giving the governor power to remove
officers not subject to impeachment
for willful neglect of duty. Such
law was introduced but failed to pass.
The opposition claimed that it would
give too much power to the governor,
and that under it he would remove
his enemies and appoint his friends
to office. This reasoning has been
before the courts in constituting such
laws and the courts have invariably
held that the responsibility to the peo-
pie Of the officer to whom this power
is given will always prevent him from
removing an officer without Just
cause.
1t was also strenuously argued
that such law would be unconstitu-
tional upon the theory that it would
give judicial power to an executive
officer. and this argument, no doubt,
had great influence in preventing the
passage of the bill. This question
has been determined by the courts
and always in favor of the constitu-
tionality of the law. "The removal
of an officer is considered a quasi.
judicial function and statutes auth
orizing removals are not unconstitu-
tional as delegating judicial power"
People VS.. Raymond, On; " 129: Ap-
pellate Div. 477.d State rs, Wells, 2lO
Missouri, COL. People VS.. Chicago
1874, Illinois 416. l have been unable
to find single authority holding
such laws unconstitutional. The same
principle was before the supreme
court of our state in the case of Ker-
mott vs.. Bagley, 124 Northwestern
Reporter So7. The druggists permit
law under which the granting of per-
mits was imposed on the district
judges Of the state was construed in
this case. The claim was made that
it was unconstitutional inasmuch as
it conferred administrative powers
upon judicial officer, and the court
held that while it was an administra-
tive power that the law was not I'M
constitutional. Under this same rea-
soning the power to remove officers
must be upheld.
Having determined the copstitu-
tionality of the law, the next question
is its necessity. There certainly
ought to be responsible head to the
state government. Some Official that
the people might look for the enforce
ment of law and hold responsible.
There is no business concern in the
state without responsible head. Ev-
cry store, every farm, every city, in
fact every family in the state has a
responsible head. Some person or
some officer that can be held respon-
sible. The mayor of every city has
the power and the people generally
believe that the governor has. II the
state should have q responsible head,
who should be the responsible head?
To determine this we should look to
the constitution, and see II It in any
way indicates that such power should
be given to any of the officers. The
indication is found in section II
which says "the. executive power of
the state is vested in the governor"
This vests in the governor the exec
utive power. and standing alone it
would be sufficient to indicate that it
was the intention Of the constitution
that the governor should be held re-
sponsible for the enforcement of the
laws OF the state. But It does not
stand alone. Section IS Of the con-
stftution says that he shall take care
that the laws be faithfully executed.
The constitution would not command
the governor to enforce the laws of
the state unless It intended that he
should have the power to obey the
command.
The governor has no inherent right
to remove. 1t is q right that must be
conferred by law. Bruce vs.. Mallock,
Ill 8. w. Reporter 900. State vs..
Hayes, los. Minnesota 800. The pow
er must be conferred by statute. Does
our state confer the power? The only
legislation that there 10 on the sub
ect is found In chapter 3 Of the poll
teal code. section Sc, and section
1851 Of the revised codes of 1905. I'm
der section &c the governor 10 to
supervise the oncial conduct of all
executive and ministerial officers.