Autobiography of Charles Clinton Nourse: Prepared for use of Members of the FamilyNourse, Charles Clinton
History
Autobiography of Charles Clinton Nourse: Prepared for use of Members of the Family
Nourse, Charles Clinton
Iowa -- Politics and government; Lawyers -- Iowa -- Biography; Nourse, Charles Clinton, 1829-
The suit was finally
dismissed, nobody appearing to care about any investigation of the
merits of the proceeding. We accordingly had Mr. Brown, who had given
bail, surrender himself to his bondsmen, and we applied to the supreme
court of the state, then sitting at Davenport, for a writ of habeas
corpus to test the constitutionality of the statute under which,
without trial and without investigation and without hearing, the
Governor had attempted to deprive Mr. Brown of his office. The supreme
court decided this case at the Dubuque term in 1885, Seevers, judge,
delivering a dissenting opinion, and Beck, judge, taking no part in the
decision as he was not present at the submission of the cause. Adams,
judge, delivered the opinion of the three remaining judges; to-wit,
himself, Rothrock, and Reed. The majority of the court held that the
law under which the Governor acted did not authorize any removal from
office, and that it was only constitutional upon the hypothesis that
Brown should have a hearing and trial. The dissenting opinion of Judge
Seevers holds that as the law made no provision for any hearing or
trial, and the suspension was for an indefinite time and might at the
pleasure of the Governor be perpetual, it was therefore void and did
not authorize the proceedings. Thus matters stood until the fall of the
year 1885, when the people elected William Larrabee as Governor instead
of Sherman, whose term of office would expire on the first of January
ensuing.
The presumption indulged in by the majority of the court in its opinion
that Mr. Brown's removal from office was only a temporary suspension,
and that the Governor certainly would give him a hearing as to the
matters complained of and found by the special commission, is made to
appear more absurd by the subsequent action of Mr. Sherman himself,
who, on the 9th of December, 1885, made the following entry in the
executive journal, and assumed to appoint J. W. Cattell to fill what he
was pleased to call a vacancy in the office of the Auditor of State.
The entry is as follows:
DECEMBER, 9, 1885.
Whereas, at the general election held on the 4th day of November,
1884, J. L. Brown was re-elected to the office of Auditor of State;
and
Whereas, the said J. L. Brown, re-elected as aforesaid, neglected
and refused to qualify as such re-elected officer, and because
thereof his official bond as such officer was not approved nor
filed, and continued in such refusal until the 3rd day of March,
1885, and unto this time, and on account thereof on the day last
aforesaid Jonathan W. Cattell was duly appointed as Auditor of
State and immediately qualified by giving bond and taking the oath
of office as required by law, which said bond was duly approved
according to law; and
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account