The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1917-11-30
GOVERNOR NOT
NAMED TO RUN
Z. LOCAL AFFAIRS
Justice James E. Robinson Sug-
gests Frazier "Butted in" in
y. -a., Minot Case
FACT THAT SHAW IS ELK
NOT HELD TO BE CRIMINAL

Justice James Z. Robinson, Govern.
or Frazier's nonpartisan pasemaker IL
tue ldsL campaign, does not agree With
the chief executive in the shaw re.
moval matter. The province OF the
governor, says the venerable juTist, is
to look after the affairs gOf state al
large rather than to dabble with ths
affairs of local communities which
have exhibited a capacity for self gov
ernment lie is attempting, says Rob.
insOn, to usurp the prerOgatives OF a
court in making himself the sole Judge
of minor officers shortcomings.
! Justice Robinson interestingly dis
yusses the issue in his weekly letter,
s.nich follows:
(ey JUSTICE J. E. RoBINsoN.)
This week our court has handed
town several decisions, and, nest
week, we purpose to have general
leaIlup and then to commence hear
lg new cases. now submit my own
dvance decision against the constl'
uiiOnal right OF the governor to re-
nove city and county officers. The
governor is not elected to supervise
he affairs of counties or cities or to
emove and replace county officers.
.e is elected by the people of the
tate as a whole for t.le purpose OF
upervising state affairs and state in
,titutions. His duty is to keep tab
N every state officer and to see thai
le does his duty and to see that al;
fairs of the state, including the state
Institutions, are administered we'll and
aithfully and as economically as If
9 were paying the expense out OF his
wn bank account. To do all that
nd to do it we'll is quite enough for
ne man.
State ex rel Shaw VS.. Frazier.
Robinson, j.: This is an appeal from
n order of District Court by Judge
'ole dismissing a writ restraining pro-
eedings by the Governor to remove
v. S. Shaw from the office of presi'
lent of the city commissioners Of Mi
.ot. The defense is:
/. That the complaint does not
| tate a cause for removal.
2. That the statute does not auth
| ,rize a removal.
| 3. That the statute is not coQstitu
ional.
The statute reads thus: The gov
| ,rnor may remove from office any
,ounty commissioner, clerk OF the dis
rict court, county Judge, sheriff, cor
oner, county auditor, county treas
irer SUPERINTENDENT of schools, sur
'eyor. public administrator, mayor
;hief of police, deputy sheriff. or 9TH
r police officer, or any custodian OF
ublic moneys, except the state treas
rer, whenever it appears to him by
omplaint and evidence aad after hear
1g that such officer has been guilty
II misconduct, malfeasance, crime in
ffice, habitual drunkenness or gross
ncompetency. Laws of 1913, 1872.
The complaint is in effect, that as
PRESIDENT Of the city commissioners
". S. Shaw knowingly permitted tc
e kept numerous places in Mlnot
where intoxicating liquors were sold
md given away, and that he is
MEMBER of the Elks' lodge and visited
he place known as the "Elks' Home
where people assembled for tie pur
ose of drinking Intoxicating liquors
nd that on many occasions he die
here drink intoxicating liquors anC
anticipate with the club in the lille
al sale of intoxicating liquors.
The same might be said of the may
n of st. Paul, Minneapolis and nearly
very other city. They all permit
numerous things to be done which
hey cannot we'll prevent. They be
)ng to clubs and may innocently par
icipate in the doings of the clubs
he Lord knowingly permits the doing
such things and still he has an al
olu,e power to prevent them. Tht
lergy and some of the best men OF
lConlinued on page dvel