The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1917-11-20

to the constitution and is not author
lied to exercise the power without
cause, or at his mere pleasure, or
caprice. The power must be exer-
cised in manner p6nicd out by the
constitution and one of the causes
for suspension as named therein must
exist before the executive has turis-
diction to act-before the exercise of
his power can be constitutionally put
in motion.
Upon the question of notice, the
courts are somewhat in conflict. Some
hold that notice and an opportunity
to be heard is essential before the
executive can suspend, while others
hold that the governor may suspend,
but that the persons suspended has
constitutional right 70 notice and
hearing. In which case it may be
had after suspension, but in either
event the notice and hearing should
be given before the officer is removed.
Justice Raney in State Elk Rel s..
johnson, 30 Fit. 433, text 4s5, held
that the governor could suspend with
out notice, or hearing, but that:
1t is the Governor duty to notify
any officer he may suspend Of the
teou Ra0f such suspension, and give
SSttAuls LISeb ing Oh SuCn CudISeS, ana
3saansta BIN if the evidence does not
constitutional right to such hear
ing.
In the text of this decision, Justice
Raney further stated:
1T is as much the duty of the gov
ernor on suspending an officer to
notify him of the cause of the sus-
pension, or charge upon which he has
been suspended as it is to suspend
him when the facts Of a particular
case in the light of the public veal
demand removal; or as it is to refuse
to suspend when they do not seem
to demand the removal, or to rein
state when under nisapprehension
he may have enormously suspended
an officer"
The express grant Of power in the
constitution is that, "The governor
may reinstate the officer SO suspend
co upon satisfactory evidence that
the charges against him are untrue"
These pre-supposes both notice and a
nearing and imposes upon the COVER
nor, not ony the power, but the duty
to hear and either refuse to suspend
or to relnstate UPON being convinced
that the charges are not true. Aside
from the express mandate of the
constitution upon the question of no.
t1ce and hearing, ! am of the view
that to be consistent with the spirit
and purpose of constitutional govern
ment, the officer should have present
ed against him and should hava no.
tlce and an opportunity to be hesrd.
Such 1T would seem to be but funda-
mental elements essential to establish
and guarantee justice, otherwise we
have the private rights Of individuals
and the right of the public subject
to the un-regulated will and caprice
of tie executive, which at once does
violence to the fabric of constitution
al government.
! notice in the press reports that
your removal of Mr.. Bowling was
not upon specific charges, but upon
general charges. The courts in dis
cussing this question, with but slight
conflict, hold that general conclusions
from general charges are hot enough
but the facts on which the Judgment
of the executive is based must ap-
pear either in specific charges, or
the specific findings upon which the
party has been, or will be given. an
opportunity to be heard. That is, the
cases seem to consistently hold and
TO require public hearing on proper
constitutional charges upon distinctly
stated facts and not mere general
charges of wrong, or neglect SO that
it can be determined as a matter of
law whether what the removing body
treats as wrong is tithin the Legal
quality of wrong, SO as to give juris-
diction, or power to ACT to the execu-
tive. Otherwise if the executive can