Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1916-01-05
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY s, 1910
REMOVAL IUWI1. NOT VESTED
In G0vcrnor-Huckalp Is teinstat.
eh as KcnSllaw Sheriff.

Holding that the Legislature was
without power to authorize the in
definite suspension of a sheriff for
neglect of official duty, the Supreme
Court last week. in q unanimous de-
cision, ordered the reinstatement Of
w. w. IIuckabec as sheriff OF ker-
shaw county. Mr.. iiuckabee was
suspended several months ago By
Governor Manning on the charge
that he had refused to enforce the
whiskey laws, Isaac G. ltough was
appointed to succeed Mr.. ttuckabec
by Governor Manning.
'Fhe result is that tho Governor"
concludes the opinion. chad no power
to suspend or remove the petit, nor
or to appoint the defendant i'm his
place.
'Tho judgment Of this court is that
the attempted suspension Of the re-
ti'ioner and tho appointment of the
defendant. Hugh. in his place were
without authority OF law and of no
effect. end that the petitioner is en-
titled to cNerc Sc the duties Of his Of
flee OF sheriff OF I<ershaw county"
The opinion was wriLtcn by Asso-
ciate Justice Hydrich and concurrc,l
in by the Other four justices Of the
conrt.
Recital Of Events.
The following facts are set forth
preceding the Courts opinion:
"'rhe petitioner. w. w. Huckubee,
was elected sheriff of I{ershaw coun-
ty at the general election on Novcm-
Der s, 1912. and was commissioned
on January |. 1919, for a term OF
four years. On April 20. 1915 after
notice and a hearing. his ExcelIency,
the Governor. found. from the evil
dcnce adduccd at the hearing, that
said sheriff had neglected and re-
fused to ell .urce the law regulating
the sale Of Intoxicating liquors in this
county, and suspended his from Of
flee until the end OF his present term
VII 'uHc 80, WV, IuC NONelHOI
appointed and commissioned the de-
fcndant, Tough, as sheriff of said
county, in place Of petitioner. THIS
action was brought to test the Legal
ity Of Huckabce's suspension. as well
as the right Of Hough to perform the
duties OF the Office"
Points Of Difference.
I'm Mcdowell VS.. Burnett, The diff
ference between suspension and re-
moval OF officers was pointed out:
One is the mere temporary with
lrawal OF the power to exercise the
duties OF an office; the other is a
complete and final deprivation Of otli-
cial tenure. In that ease. and also
in State vs.. Rhame. it was held that
the concerning Of the power OF sus-
pension mplicdly denies the power
Of removal. The two things are eS-
sentially different. and are attended
by different consequences, both to
the officer and to the public. Reno
val creates vacancy in the Office
which may be filled at once in the
manner prescribed ny law; suspen-
sion creates no vacancy, and where
there is no provision nf law for some
other to perform the duties Of the
Office b! temporary appointment, or
otherwise, we would have an office
and an officer, but no one to dis
charge tho duties Of the Office, to the
great Inconvenience OF the nubtic for
whose benefit the Office was created
Hence, the reason Is apparent why
the trainers OF the constitution placed
greater limitation and restrictions
upon the power Of suspension than
they did upon the power Of removal,
and why, in the general grant Of the
power Of suspension and also in the
special cases in which it is allowed
they made suitable provision for the
performance Of the duties Of the Of.
flee by some other officer or by q tenn
porary appointee during the suspen-
sion
I'm the case before us the statute
attempts to authorize indefinite sus-
pension, not temporary suspension as
step In and incident to removal;
and it makes no provision for the
performance Of the duties Of the Of
flee during the suspension. As we
have seen, the Governor Is without
power to appoint any one to dis