holding that article XVI, section 30 did not give an officer a “right to hold an office contrary to the will and wishes of the people he represents” or prohibit the legislature from granting to a city “the right to remove, by process of the recall provision, any officer who failed to discharge his duty in a manner satisfactory to the people of that city”
How later courts described this case
- holding that article XVI, section 30 did not give an officer a “right to hold an office contrary to the will and wishes of the people he represents” or prohibit the legislature from granting to a city “the right to remove, by process of the recall provision, any officer who failed to discharge his duty in a manner satisfactory to the people of that city”
- stating in dicta that officer may be removed by abolishing office or by legal action declaring it vacant
- expressly approving holding in Hendericks
- expressly approving holding in Hem&vi&s
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Dibrell
dissenting.
I regret that I am not able to agree.with a majority of the court in their disposition of this case, but on account of the fact that the court is on the eve of adjournment, I will not have time to express my views on the questions involved. I consider the questions presented in this case of great importance, calling for a construction of more •than one provision of the Constitution of this State and affecting the form of our government.
I will reduce to writing my views for this dissent and file later on.
[The contemplated opinion presenting Mr. Justice DibrelVs views was not filed by him.]