The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-03-01

while it is the law it must be enforced
because it is the law and its violation
will lead to general lawlessncss. AS
Stunning then, for the sake of argu-
ment. that there are officers who ne
glect or refuse to prosecute certain
laws. the first thought that to
mo 1t, "What is an office?" Is it Gre
ated for tho benefit of the individual
officer or for the benefit of the pub
lie" AT common law an office was
considered property. and some of the
early decisions in this country upon
this theory. that is. that a person
could have property in an office. held
that an officer could not be removed
except by q judicial proceeding in
court. hut it is a we'll settled rule
of law in the United States that an
office is not property but is a public
trust or agency, not held by contract
or grant--the officer has no vested
right therein and. subject to consti-
%tutional restrictions. the office may
lr vacated or abolished. The office
is for the benefit of the public, the
officer II public ervant. If he re-
fuses or negiccts to perform the du-
ties nf his office there is no more roa-
son why he should he retained than
Il private servant. Peace officers are
%esperia;i" charged with the duty of
enforcing tho penal Ia W., not some of
them. but nil of them. Such laws are
made. for t'ie protection of life and
property, amtI peace officers arc elected
! for their enforcement. They have no
other duties ana i they fail in their
performance there should hn a sure,
speedy. summary remedy. not ny the
slow process OF the courts where the
laws delays might prevent removal
until after the term OF Office had eX-
PRED. hut n fair, speedy tria! upon
\ NJ y.r., ..F-.- -t.-
with tho responsibility OF enforcing
tho law.
Need Rcsnnstblc Head.
There certainly ought to he 2 re-
spnnsible head TO the state govern
ment. some official whom Tho people
might look to- for the enforcement of
law II hold responsible. There is
no business concern in The state with
out a responsible head. Every store,
farm. city, bank. corporation. co.
partnership and every family in the
state has Il responsible head, some
person or officer who ran he held re-
sponsiblc. # the state should have a
responsible head who should he the
head?
Should BE Power.
There should he then n power of
removal, and where better can it be
iih-S1 'I'iI II w 'lilttI III MIltbl1l is
vested all the executive power of the
state and who is commanded to take
car" that n laws he faithfully exc
cuted. The first objection made to
this is that tho governor would use
his power for political purposes. and
would remove his enemies and ap-
point his friends to office. This rea-
son has beer before the courts in ron
structing such laws, and the courts
have invariably held That the rcspon-
sihility to h people of the officer to
whom this power is given will pre-
vent him from removing an officer
without just cause. No governor
would ever dare to use his power
for political purposes, for such a use
would kill him politically. But to
avoid all question of the power being
used for political purposes lot there
be a provision in the law that it shall
not be used for political purposes. but
only for cause. 1t could not under
purposes. for the causes for which the
officer might be removed are named
in the constitution. Before the gov
crnor could remove m officer he
would ave to charge the officer with
one of tho offcnses named in Sec.
1871 of the constitution: Misconduct.
malfcasancc, crime or lmisdcmeanor in
oiiitf, VI LUZ IEtpItuil IuIlhcTlHtSS OF
gross i~ncompetoncN, and only for
these causes could the legislature
make provision for removal and the
governor remove.
Another Objection.
The ncx objection and the one that
seems to have the greatest weight
with the public generally is that it is
giving to an executive officer judicial
power. and therefore unconstitutional.
This question has been many times in
the courts and there are authorities
on both sides, but tho great weight
of authority holds that it is not Judi
cial power within the meaning of that
term. and hat such laws are not un-
constitutional. y worry elaborate and
learned discussion of this subject is
to lie found in the caac of the Terri
tory of Dakota V. Cox. s Oak. sol.
This case has not been followed in
some particulars in either North or
South Dakota but the decision on the
question of judicial power stands un-
challenged. l quote from said dcci-
sion on page sos.
yet if the power be clearly judi
cial. it cannot as. already shown. he
conferred upon the executive, and any
be q usurpation and his action illegal
and void. What then is judicial pow
or? II is said To he the power to
hear and determine" but this defin-
ition is too comprehensive: every ad-
ministrativc and executive officer is
required to hear and determine many
facts upon which his action is based.
All the political and executive depart
ments of the government are reqrir-
ed to pass upon controverted qucs-
tions of fact, boards of canvassers.
boards of equalization, boards of
county commissioners, and other ad-
ministrativc officers are continually
passing u"on questions of the great
est moment tn tho citizen. involving
the right of Office. the disbursement of
the public vcn in tho erection of
bridges and public buildings. and the
opening OF highways in fixing values
of property and in lcvying and collect
ing of taxes. often involving civil
ministration of h government is con-
%corned. rights of persons and proper
ty; and while tho determination of
such questions involves judgment and
discretion and the examination of diff
ficult and controvcrted questions of
fact. and while the decision of such
administrative officer upon such hear
ings is final. yet his action is not ju-
dicial. In the case of the state V.
Hawkins. lately determined in the su-
preme court of Ohio, where the gov
ernor of that state had removed the
police commissioners of Cincinnati,
and it was urged hat his action was
illegal and void upon the ground that
the power of removal was judicial and
could not be conferred upon the eX-
ecutive. that court in an able review
of the American authorities upon this
question:. holding that the power of