Year: 1879




Itseems to us that those inveighing against
Governor Robinson for the discretion he
has exercised in dismissing Mr.. Gumbleton
from Office and allowing Mr.. Loew to con-
tinue in Office overlook the reasons assigned
by the Governor for this discrimination. We
do not dispute that the charges alone, apart
from the circumstances, are substantially
alike Both officers were accused OF taking
higher fees than the law allows In this
respect the two cases are similar, and if
nothing else wore to be considered
the two offending officers should be
treated precisely alike. II Governor
Robinson were a. magistrate presid-
ing over criminal court he could
not properly have made any discrimination
between the two cases. The maxim SO often
paraded that ignorance Of the law is no ex-
cuse,'is maxim Of criminal jurisprudence
which is binding on judges who try crimes
and misdemeanors, but having no ap-
plication outside OF criminal courts.
The Governor of the State is bound
by no such technical rule in deciding
whether it is his duty to remove IN
inculpateu officer. He is to look merely
to the interests of the public service and to
the duty imposed on him to see that the
laws are faithfully executed. The artifce,
or rather the sophistry, by which the action!
of the Governor in these two cases is inn
pugned consists in confounding the action
Of an executive officer with the duty Of
criminal judge. The judge of criminal
court has no discretion. His course is
marked out for him by positive law. If the
offence charged in the Indictment is proved
and the jury finds verdict against the
prisoner he is compelled to pronounce the
sentence prescribed by the statute.
But the Governor Of the State is
bound by no such technical rules.
Whether he will remove an accused officer
rests in his uncontrolled discretion. He is
to look merely to the interests Of the pub
lie service, Of which he is the free judge,
unrcstrained by any rules except those i'm
posed by his own sense Of duty.


Governor Robinson, in his statement Of
reasons, makes broad and ineligible
distinction between the case Of Mr.. Gum



that Mr.. Gumbleton put illegal obstacles
in the way Of an examination of his books.
He declares that the County Clerk justified
his exaction Of illegal fees, and that q dis
missal Of the charges against him would
have encouraged and emboldened him to
persist in his plain violations of law. A
failure to remove him would have been an
Endorsement of his illegal action and have
made the Governor his accomplice.


The case Of Register Loew, as stated by
the Governor, is entirely different Mr..
Loew put no obstacles in the wny of an
investigation. He did not dispute the
right to examine his books. As soon as his
attention was called to the schedule of fees
he examined it, acknowledged that it
was illegal and rectifed it without
delay. He profcssed his intention to
comply with the law without any
reserve. Unlike Mr.. Gumbleton, who
did his utmost to battle Investigation, who
was contumacious, who attempted to justify
his action and implied that he meant to
persist in it, Mr.. Loew acknowledged
his error and promptly corrected the
! abuse. By retaining him in office
the Governor ran no risk of further
violations of the law, whereas retention Of
Mr. Gumbleton in Office would have sane
toned his preposterous claim that he had
not violated the law, and have encouraged
him to persist. We incline to think that
the action of the Governor in discriminate
ing between two cases which arc SO very
different is judicious and proper.