Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1915-04-20

the present board, Messrs. Magtll,
Turner and Craig, were appointed by
Gov. Blease in the years 1912, 1913 and
1914, respectively. so that under the
statute creating this board, their terms
expire in the years 1916, 1916, and
1917.
The statute relating to the appoint
ment of the state bank examiner reads
as follows:
Section 2645. The term Of office of
said bank examiner shall be four
years"
1t will be recalled that in April, 1912,
Gov. Blease issued a proclamation re-
citing acts and omissions which he
characterized as neglect Of duty by
B. ]. Rhame, state bank examiner. and
declaring that he did thereby, for the
imputed neglect of duty. emove
Rhame from his office.
That case was taken to the courts.
and Mr.. Justice c. A. Woods, who was
then on the supreme court bench, now
a Federal court Judge, in writing the
opinion IN mat case, SAID.
THE question then m to this:
when a statute creates an office to be
filed by appointment Of the governor
and fixes the term for which the ap-
pointee shall hold, but confers upon
the governor no power to removal,
does the governor, nevertheless, have
the power Of removal under h con-
stitution or the statute law Of the state
or the common law?
Laying aside for the moment the
constitution and the statute Law Of the
state, we consider the common Law
rule as established by judicial express
sion. Surely, men of common sense,
learned and unlearned, would be sur
prised to find the law to be that when
the legislative department has created
an office to be filled by appointment
Of the governor and extended and
limited its term to four years, yet the
governor could at will shorten the
term by removal, although no power
Of removal has been conferred. Such
executive power Is denied by both
reason and authority. The governor,
as chief executive. has no p~rerogative
control over officers such as Is
held by the king Of Great Britain.
The power Of removal from office.
therefore, Is not an incident Of the ex-
ecutive office and exists only where 1t
Is conferred by the costitution or by
the statute law, or is implied from the
comforting Of the power Of appoint
ment."
The findings of the court in the
Rhame case was that where q statute
creates an Office to be filled by ap-
pointment by the governor, and fixes
the term for which the appointee shall
hold, but confers on the governor no
power Of removal, he has no power
under the constitution, the statute law
or the common law to remove him.
There is nothing in either the par
don board statute or the bank exam
liner statute providing for a shortening
Of the term or removal by the gov
ernor, or for an appointment for an
unexpired term, and 1t seems to q lay
man, from a cursory reading Of the
opinion in the Rhame case, which Is
reported in 80 s. c., at page 455, that
as the lawyers and judges would say,
1t Is a case ION all fours' with the
case Of the pardon board.
1t will probably be urged, however,
that the Blease board was only ap-
] pointed for an unexpired term and
that these unexpired terms have at
last expired.
In this connection u attention has
been called to an opinion Of the su-
preme court, set out in the same vol
ume Of South Carolina Reports, and
written by the same judge, Mr.. Woods,
that case being Mcdowell againstBur-
nett. This was a case in reference to
the term Of office Of a magistrate.
Under the constitution, magistrates
shall hold their offices for the term
Of two years and until their successors
are appointed and qualified" The su-
preme court held in that case that a
statute Of the general assembly pro-
viding for the filling Of a vacany in
the magistrates Office for the unex-
pired term vas unconstitutional, and
without effect, and that when the mag
~istrate was appointed, confirmed by
the senate and qualified, his tenure
was not for an unexpired term, but
for a full term. Applying this princi-
pie, when the members Of the Blease
board were appointed, their tenure was
not for an ~unexpired term, but for a
full term Of three years.
1t seems to us hat the cases are
analogous all the way through, and
we presume that it Is the law, as
these principles were laid down by
the court Of last resort in South Caro-
lima Is 1t possible though, that such
constructions Of the statutes as were
made by the supreme court only ap-
piled to the actions Of Gov. Blease,
and that now they may be set at
naught by Gov. Manning? 1t begins to
look so, and that Gov. Manning, as
chef executive, has prerogative con-
troll over officers as Is held by the
king of Great Britain. the supreme
court Of the state Of South Carolina
to the contrary, Notwithstanding.