El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1918-06-03

opinion or judge Elel4 -9 =-h Gil --i--'-
weight by legal minds throughout the
state Since reading his opinion "
full. the following wen known men OF
Texas have issued the following;
We concur in the opinion Of
fudge II. o. Head Of sherman,
that the impeachment proceedings
against James i. Ferguson are
valid. and that the Judgment OF
the same is final and conclusive
and that IT disqualified him from
again holding the office OF gov
(signed) F. A. Williams,
W. II. Gill
Howard Templeton
n. A. Steadman
Thomas II. Franklin
j. b Dibreu
Ed Adams
Robert Allen.
Upon the legal question involved,
nv oDfufon is that Gov Ferguson IS
DISQUALIFIED from holding Office, SAYS
Judge Head. Il cannot see now TINS
can now be considered an open Ques-
ton in this state. The application OF
a few elementary principles 70 tle
situation, I believe. viii be helpful ID
arriving at a correct conclusion
Power OF Removal
"The power OF appointment 70 ana
removal from office are OF the ut
most importance 20 the people or the
state. The power Of appointment is
Of but little, If any. more importani,t,
than the power OF removal 1T VIII
be considered that IL the power Of
appointment is conferred by the law
uVOn the governor or other official or
tribunal. without restriction as 20 the
qualifications Of the apDoiutee. the
decision as 20 such qualifications is
iupHedIv left to the discretion Of the
apDointive power; and in like manner
II the power Of removal from Office is
conferred by the law upon the cover
nor or other official or tribunal with
out restrictions as to the causes toF
removal, the decision as 90 such
causes is implicitly left 20 the discre-
tion Of the official or tribunal upon
whom the power has been conferred,
and anyone who accepts Office con-
sents 20 this effect OF the law
That IL would be exceedingly diff
cult IL not entirely impracticable, 10
Define by law every cause or reason
which should be held sufficient 10
justify the removal Of an OFFICER is az
once apparent. What might very
properly be held sufficient 20 call for
/ the removal OF one officer might prop
erly be held insufficient 20 eau Tor
the removal OF another. Inability 70
: read or write might be held 90 dis
qualify for a college protessorshlp,
but not for ianitor. Gross addiction
to profanity, or the use of indecent
language. might very properly pc
held sufficient cause for removal from
the position Of teacher. but not ron
the office Of captain Of rangers.
Things That Might Serve.
"An av0wed intention by the ap-
pointing officer 20 be guided I'm max
interest, instead Of by the interests
I of the public. might very properly be
held sufficient cause 20 call for the
removal Of the officer making such
avcwaL A practice persisted in by a
public official 10 use the public
money in his own private business
should be held sufficient cause 20 jus
I tify the removal Of such official
I Gross incompetence 20 discharge the
duties OF q public office should be
I held sufficient cause 20 JUSTIFY the
removal Of the officer theretrom- A
/ thousand other causes misnt be
named as sufficient 90 call FOR the re-
moval Of officers who may have been
I improvidently installed 10 specify all
Of which in a statute would be pracu-
calIv Impossible
HThe legislature. therefore, has In
some Instances specified the grounds
I for removal from office. but has very
wisely in a great many other IN
Z stances left the ground for the re-
moval TO the official or tribunal en-
trusted with the power. The wisdom
OF doing this was strongly approved
by Gov. Ferguson as applied 20 hi;
own appointees and the appolntees OF
his predecessor, but strongly con-
demned by him as applied 10 leaving
to the legislature the decision OF tni
! causes for his own removal IL VII
I be understood, OF course that I'M
] parchment and removal from ottic'
I are practically the same. and ar'
treated Of In some Of the law book!
under the latter head
Similar to New York Law.
The judge then cites decisions q
prove his contention. and continues
1T will be observed that the con
stitution Of New York is the only on
exactly like that Of Texas in merely
! providing for imneachment withou
j Specifying the offense for which f
may be brought. /. therefore. con
iclude that the decided weight of au
Ithority. If not the unquestioned au
Ithority. is I'm favor OF the power q
limpeach. under constitution whicl
docs not specify the grounds for TIL
impeachment, and that the only re
stricti0n i'm cases Of that kind is tina
the ground upon which the impeach
Iment rs based must be such acts, com
Imitted while I'm office. as render tn
3 incumbent an unsuitable person TO en-
joy the office as defined by the au
thorities hereinbefore quoted
The Inv Followed.
what Is said above answers tn
% contention that is made by some tina
% an impeachment for acts not previ
ously defined IS in effect an eN pos
facto law. The law under which tn
Iimpea chment is had Is a part OF tn
constitution itself. and as we hav
I seen. by its own terms sufficiently
provides the grounds for impeach
Iment without the necessity Of an
further legislation.
'I believe that it has earnestly beel
7 c0utended hve Gov. Ferguson that on
present constitution is fatally defec
? tive in that it does not provide man
Iner Of proceeding In Impeachment
: trials. but only provides that 'th
i, power Of iuDea chment shall be veste
in the house OF representative, ant
that the imneachment Of q governo
d shall be tried iu the senate The con
/ tention is that there should be som
provision either iu the constitution o
I'm an act OF the legislature providin'
for the conduct Of an impeachre1
o. trial However. the question IS def
% uitely set al rest in the King an
, lTrlEg cases
Not Allowed to Resign.
"The question Of the right of pub
g lie officer to resign received careful
/ consideration by the supreme court o
1.-THE United states in the case or Bad
ger We. Z. s, 90 o. s. 500, in which
That where bv law the term OF a.
officer is until his successor ha