Daily Kennebec journal., 1914-02-27

| Phrases, Vol. :, luUS. 1t Hhusl aiSo aP
pear that the notice required is rea
sonable, and an opportunity afforded
, for a hearing.
Under this definition ii would seen
a sound conclusion that the causes
stated in the resolution of address con
| stituted a statement of legal cause:
within the contemplation of the con
! situional Requirement. To make the
| statement clear, it is necessary to re-
| peat the causes stated, in connection
with the statue cited, In order that the
| precise import of the causes may bt
| fully understood. The resolution con-
| tains the following allegations: First
| because the said Lewis w. Moulton
who is now holding office of sheriff fol
! the County Of Cumberland, and who
has held said office continuously since
the first day of January, A. d. 1918
wilfully or corruptly refuses or ne
elects to perform the duties required
of him as such sheriff by section six
ty-nine of chapter twenty-nine of the
Revised Statutes of this State, as
amended by chapter forty-one of the
Public Laws of nineteen hundred and
five. and particularly his duties as said
sheriff in enforcement of the law
against the Illegal sale of intoxicating
liquors and the keeping of drinking
houses and tippling shops
The statute referred to, as amended,
reads as follows: 'Sheriffs and their
deputies and county attorneys shall
diligently and faithfully inquire into
in, hot
spectiye counties, and institute pro-
ceedings in case of violations or sup
posed violations of law, and particu-
larly the law against illegal sale of
intoxicating liquors, and the keeping
of drinking houses and tipplinS shops,
gambling houses or places, and houses
Of i'll fame, either by entering COM
plant before magistrate and exc
cutting the warrants issued thereon, or
by furnishing the county attorney
promptly and without delay. with the
witnesses. Any sheriff, deputy sheriff
or county attorney, who shall wilfully
or corruptly refuse or neglect to per-
form any of the duties required by
this section, shall be punished by fine
not exceeding one thousand dollars or
by Imprisonment not exceeding one
year" The causes here assigned clear
ly and fully state a case of non-feas-
ance, which is defined as "an omis-
sion to perform the required duty at
all. or a total neglect Of a duty; the
omission of an act which a person
ought to do. See "Non-f feasance,'
al
In fact the title of chapter Il, Public
Laws, 1905 is AN Act providing penal
ties for -feasanoe of duty by sher-
ifs" etc. Under the statute cited,
there can be no question that nom
feasance specially relates TO and af-
fects the administration of the office
of sheriff, and is of a substantial ma
ture directly affecting the rights and
interests of the public. and, as such
nonfeasance is punishable by fine or
imprisonment, it manifestly consti-
tutes charge of unfitness to hold Of
flee.
AS the relator appeared with counsel
and was fully heard in an exhaustive
trial that lasted several days, no question
can be raised as to notice or hearing.
We can assure that these jurisdictional
requirements are established, and here
after in referring to jurisdiction ii will
be upon the assumption that these two
requirements are settled.
But it is urged that the causes stated
were not sufficiently specific to give 1uris-
diction. This is not a valid objection,
causes are stated and entered upon the
journal. there the constitutional limita-
ton ends, and the legislative prerogauve
begins, so far as a statement of causes
10 nnnrprnad and having aCNilirp1 5llTiS-
dietion the legislature may file further
specifications or not as 1t may see mt
(2) Because the causes stated are in the
language of the statute, as specific as
the nature of the case will admit and
we think, would sustain an Indictment.
Under the first reason, as matter or
constitutional Interpretation. 1t may be
said, after the legislature has properly
observed the jurisdictional facts and
thereby acquired jurisdiction of the case,
that, beyond this, all matters OF proceed
ure specification and detail, are left nee
essarily to the discretion of the leglsla-
ture, as acts of sovereign power. as no
other way has been prescribed by the
constitution. 1t could not originate IN
the courts, nor are the courts given
either original or appellate jurisdiction.
1t must be initiated by the legislature;
be tried by the legislature; and deter
mined by the legislature.
This view, we think, is also substan-
tiated by authority so far as the courts
have had occasion to pass upon the issue.
Necessarily this precise question has but
infrequently become matter OF 1udiclai
review In Massachusetts judicial offl-
GERS may be removed by address, put
neither charges, notice or hearing are
required by the terms of the Constitu-
tion. In Commonwealth VS.. Hartman,
1874 Mass 314, it was held that the
power of removal was absolute and
could be exercised by the Legislature
without limitation or restriction. 1t is
there said: '1n confiding to the Two
coordinate branches of the government
this important and exceptional power
of removing the judiciary. the people
found sufficient protection to the sub
stantial independence of the judicial
department of the constitutional guar
antics thrown around it, in the fact
that the removal can only be made by
the concurrent action of both houses
of the Legislature and Of the Governor
and Council. all of whom are directly
answerable to the people at frequently
recurring periods, and in the trust and
confidence they may rightfully repose
In their servants and agents that IN
the exercise of any power committed
to them they will act in obedience &c
their oaths of office and in the spirit
of the fundamental principles OF the
Constitution. When we consider the
origin and history of the provisions, the
obvious and natural meaning of its Ian
guage. and the uniform practical con-
struction which has been given to it
we are forced to the conclusion that
the intention of the people. was to en-,
trust the power of removal of judi
cial officer to the two coordinate
branches of the government without
Iipoitatiop or reStriciion The