Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1913-09-26
CANNOT RENO MAYOR

|CalVVOl KIM IlAYOl|
CITY COUNCIL HAS NO RIGHT re
REMOVE OFFICERS ELECTED
BY THE PEOPLE .ss 4
An order for temporary injunction
has been issued by Judge Roeser of
St. Cloud and filed with the clerk of
court in the case of F. G. johnson VS..
the City Of Little Falls, enjoining the
council from proceeding with the re-
moval Of the mayor, or in any way in
terfering with his duties as mayor. The
decision in effect says that the coun-
|cil. although having a right to GUST
appointive officers for cause; have no
jurisdiction as to the office of mayor,
he being elected by the votes of the
people. However, the city is not restrain
ed from proceeding in any lawful man
ner for any willful misconduct in Of
flee or disregard or neglect Of official
duties, and it is pointed out that the
matter can be, taken up by til, gard
jury. and the, law also provides that
the attorney general Of the state may
bring action in the name Of the state.
"When any public officer does or suf-
fers an act which by law causes a
forfeiture of his Office ..f..s \ 1.. Z
The mayor was charged with 1nalfeses-
ance and non.feasance in resolution
passed by the council and he was to
appear before that body for a hearing
on the evening Of August Z. A re-
straining order was issued by Judge
Roeser, and the case came up for hear
ing at the term of court commencing
on Sept. 2, at which time argument
was heard. The case was taken under
Amusement by the judge, and his de-
cis'oL rendered as herein stated.
The memorandum Of the case fol-
lows: $50 :"
= $50 Memorandum
AT the hearing on the order to-, show
cause above mentioned, it was admit
tel by counsel for the city Of Little
Fails that under the provisions of it's
charter and under any and all laws Of
the state applicable to said city Of Lit
t. Falls, there was no express power
given to the common council Of said
city to remove other than officers ap-
pointed by it or some other officer and
that so far as the provisions Of It's
charter and the statute were concerned
there was no express authority to re-
NOV, an officer who had been elected
by the people Of the city. g..
incompetent, dishonest, unfaithful or
negligent public servant is an import
ant one and it's exercise should not be
interfered with, provided such exercise
of power comes from the proper
tribunal.
The claim of the city is that lie
power of motion is vested IN the
council, as one of it's inherent 20 wers
as governing body of corporation,
and that such power is recognized M
der the principles Of the common law.
Under the common lew the RICH, to
an office was regarded as a hereIita-
ment and the holder could not be d.
vested Of his rights without judgment
of court, after due notice and a hear
Ing:
State VS.: Peterson, 50 Minnesota,
239.
State VS.. Pritchard, Sc n. J. L., 10l.
Drlam VS.. Wilson, So Mich, 1872.
While such power is judicial it is not
necessary that the body exercising such
power be a court but such body must
be invested with judicial power from
SOME source.
Under the constitution of our state
the power of removal is vested in the
first place in the state legislature by
article II, section 2, of the constitution
and the state legislature is given the
right by that section to provide for the
removal of inferior officers from office
for .malfeasance or for nonfeasance in
the performance of their duties. The
legislature has provided a penalty for
neglect of official duties by section
ACC which reads:
"Whenever any duty is enjoined by
law upon any public officer or person
holding public trust or employment
duty. and every malfeasance in office
for the punishment Of which no special
provision has been made, shall be a
gross misdemeanor, "rd punished by
fine and imprisonment. - .
/ And it has also provided in section
52s:; that the grand jury Of the county
shall inquire: "Into the willful and
corrupt misconduct in office Of all pub
lie officers in the count - It has also
provided by section 1915 that the at
torney general of the state may bring
an action in the name Of the state
'When any public officer does o.
suffers an act which by law causes 8
! forfeiture of his office.'' It has alst
empowered the governor to heal
charges against certain county ant
| other officials and to remove then
from office if the charges are proven
and warrant removal; but no provisio.
can be found whereby the Legislature
has empowered the city council Of Lit
tie Falls to remove an elective officer
The claim that it is an inherent powe
of every governing body Of corpora
ton is refuted by our supreme court il
the case of ex rel j. F.. Brand VS.
Thompson, 81 Mimi, 278. This wa
a case under which the city council o
East Grand Forks had instituted pro
ceedings to remove the relator , fro1
Ibis office as mayor and he made az
pEcation to the supreme, court of thi
| state for an order prohibiting ther
from doing so; in that case it was ais
! claimed as in the present case that tn
council as governing body had the il
helcnt power Of removal Of the mayo
but the supreme court says: ''.f
IL 'Tho c0ntontinn that in1onon1Qnf n