The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1915-04-16
opinion of the supreme court of soptn

Carolina in that case, said:
"The question then comes to t@is:
when statute creates an Office to be
filed by appointment of the governor
and fixes the term for witch the ap-
pointee shall hold, but confers upon
the governor no power of removal,
does tie governor, nevertheless, haze
the power Of removal under the COO
stitution or the statute law of the State
or the common law.
Laying aside for the moment the
constitution and the statute law of tie
State, We consider the common law
rule as established by judicial express
sion. Surely, men of common seusc,
learned and unlearned, would be sur
prised to find the law t. De that Wnen
t1e legislative department has created
an Office to be filed by appointment
of the governor and extended and lin
tied its term to four years, yet the
governor could at will shorten tie
term by removal, although no power or
removal has been conferred. Such
executive power is denied by
bota reason and authority. The
governor, as chief executive, has no
prerOgative 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 eH-
ecutive Office and exists only where 1t
is conferred by the constitution or by
the statute law, or is implied from the
comforting of the power 0f appoint
ment.'
The finding of the court in the
r. anne case was that where staute
creates an Office to be filled by appoint
ment by the governor, and fixes tie
term for which the appointee shall
hold, but confers on the governor no
power of removal, he has no power
under tie 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
iner statute providing for shortening
of the term or removal by the gov
ernor, or for an appointment for an
unexpired term, and it seems to lay
man, from a cursory reading of tie
opinion in the Rname case, which is
reported in 92 S. c., at page 455, that
as the lawyers and judges would say,
it is a case "on all fours" with the
case of the pardon board.
1t will probably be urged, however,
that the Blease board was only ar-
pointed for an unexpired term and
that t3ese unexpired terms have at last
expired.
In this connection, our attention has
been called to an opinion OF the su-
preme court, set out in the same Tol-
ume Of South Carolina Reports, and
written by the same judge, Mr. Woods,
that case being Mcdowell against Bur
nett. This was case in reference tc
the term of Office of 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 u
statute of the general assembly pro-
viding for the filing of a vacancy in
the magistrates Office for the unex-
pired term was unconstitutional, and
without effect, and that when the mag
istrate was appointed, confirmed by
the senate and qualified, mis- tenure
was not for an unexpired term, bnt
tor full term. Applying this princi-
pie, when the members of the Blease
board were appointed, their tenure vas
not for an unexpired term, but for
full term of three years.
It seems to US that the cases are
analogous all the way through, and
wa nrocunoo f6ot II ic tfnp law as