, 1926-06-16
JUDGE RINER UPHOLDS
GOVERNORS DECISION
Continued from rage II

transcripts on error then it would
perhaps be the duty of this Court
to disregard the testimony and CON
slider the transcript as a nullity. 1t
is not the intention or wish of the
writer, however, to do that, al
though the result in such event
reached by the Court would be the
same.
"As was intimated in the ruling
on the demurrer of the respondent
to the petition of the relator here
the Court felt that justice to both
sides required that the proofs in
the ease be taken and they have
been carefully examined.
at was conceded by counsel for
the relator in the argument on
final hearing that it was lot the
duty of this Court to weigh the
testimony introduced before the
Governor, other than to determine
whether there was substantial testi-
mony or evidence, if believed by the
Governor, would have clothed her
with power to act under the statute
pursuant to which the proceedings
before her were had. 1t was also
conceded by counsel for relator that
there was evidence of a substantial
character which, if believed, would
authorize the Governor to make
the removal from office complained
of here. But it was insisted that
such substantial evidence relating
only to alleged misdeeds by the
accused official during his term OF
office Immediately preceding the
one he was serving when the re-
moyal was had. This question was
quite fully argued by both sides on
demurrer and thoroughly and care
fully examined by the Court at that
time. Inasmuch as the pleadings in
a cause do not always represent
the true state of facts it was thot
best to overrule the demurrer and
proceed with the aus to the
proofs. But the investigation which
the Court made at that time, sup
plemented both by mature reflection
and by a further search in the
authorities has convinced the Court
that the better rule to govern mat
tiers of this kind is that the re
moving power should have author
ity to, and in fact should, consider
alleged ~offenses occurring during a
term Immediately previous to the
one being served by the official
when accused. To the Courts mind
the S given by the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts and
the Supreme Court of Iowa, in lead
ing cases affirming this view on
this question decided by both OF
those courts of high authority, are
unanswerable, and that this is true
from both a moral standpoint a
legal standpoint, and from the
standpoint of the best interests OIL
the public service.
"As to the alleged misconduct
of the relator during the term oil
office from which he was removed,
there is some circumstantial evil
dence which, if believed by the
Governor, might possibly have au-
thorized her to act, but this Court
does not feel It'll s necessary to de-
termine that fact, being thoroughly
satisfied with the view OF the law
as indicated above and entirely
agreeing with counsel for relator
that as to the former term there
was sufficient evidence which, II
believed by the Governor, author
lied her to remove the relator from
the office held by him.
at results from the foregoing
that there will be a general finding
in favor of the respondent, a judg-
ment that the action be dismissed
and that respondent recover his
costs"