The State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Hawkins. 65 Ala. 269 Barnard v. Gaslin, 23 Minn. 192; Crocker v. Getchell, 23 Me. 392; Fuller v. McDonald, 8 Greenl. 213; Tankersley v. Graham, 8 Ala. 247; Stubbs v. Goodall, 4 Ga. 106; Wilson v. Black, 6 Blackf. 509; Holton v. McCormick, 45 Ind. 411; Stack v. Beach, 74 Ind. 571; Woodward v. Foster, 18 Gratt. 200; Barry v. Morse, 3 N. H. 132; Heaverin v. Donnell, 7 Sm. & M. 244; Heath v. Van Cott, 9 Wis. 516. This is also the rule in England. Hoare v. Graham, 3 Campb. 57; Abrey v. Crux, 5 Com. P. (L. R.), 37 ; Bell v. Lord Ingestre, 12 Q. B. 317; see also, Forsythe v. Kimball, 91 U. S. 291; Specht v. Howard, 16 Wall. 564. Judgment affirmed. THE STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. HAWKINS. Constitutional law-Article 13, section 1—Act of April 3, 1885-Power of governor to remove police commissioners-Right of removed officer to hold over. 1. The act of the general assembly passed April 3, 1885 (82 Ohio L. 101– 111), conferring certain corporate powers on cities of the first grade of the first class, is one of a general, and not of a special, nature; and, therefore, not in conflict with article 13, section 1, of the constitution, prohibiting the passage of special acts conferring such powers. 2. The power conferred on the governor of the state by section 1872 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by said act, to remove any members of the board of police commissioners, is administrative, and not judicial, in its nature; and, therefore, not in conflict with article 4, section 1, of the constitution, conferring judicial power on the courts of the state. 3. Where charges, embodying facts that, in judgment of law, constitute official misconduct, are preferred to the governor, of which notice is given the members charged, and he, acting upon the charges so made, removes them from office, his act is final, and can not be reviewed, or held for naught in this court, on a proceeding in que warranto, whether he erred or not, in exercising the power so conferred on him. 4. A police commissioner, removed from office by the governor for official misconduct, as provided in section 1872 of the Revised Statutes, as amended April 3, 1885, does not, under section 1542 of said statutes, hold over until his successor is elected and qualified. When removed from his office, he ceases to be an officer, and can not, therefore, hold over as such. The State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Hawkins. QUO WARRANTO. The information states in substance, that the defendants, Morton L. Hawkins, Julius Reis, and Will. A. Stevens, were, on April 4, 1885, appointed police commissioners of the city of Cincinnati by its board of public works, under an act of the general assembly of the state passed April 3, 1885 (82 Ohio L. 101); that they entered upon their duties as such, and continued to act in that capacity until February 3, 1886, at which time they were duly removed by the governor of the state; and that, notwithstanding such removal, they have unlawfully continued to exercise the power and authority incident to the office of police commissioners; and, therefore, the relator asks for a judgment of ouster. The defendants Hawkins and Reis have filed a joint, and the defendant Stevens a separate, answer. Each answer admits the appointment and removal, and that defendants continue to exercise the powers of police commissioners, but denies that they were lawfully removed, and also the power of the governor to remove them; and then sets forth the proceedings before the governor on which the removal was made. These were in substance as follows: On January 24, 1886, charges of official misconduct were preferred against them. to the governor, by certain citizens of Cincinnati, acting as the ad interim committee of the committee of one hundred in said city, specifying as grounds of the charges, the appointment of a large number of persons to places upon the police force of the city, who by reason of their known. character and habits, were wholly unfit for the places to which they had been appointed upon the force. In the appointment of some of these, to wit, Michael Mullen and John Tosney, Stevens did not concur; but it was charged that he did in the appointment of a large number, wholly unfit to act as police officers, some of whom are gamblers, some of whom have served terms in the work-house, in the penitentiary, in the jail, have been inmates of the house The State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Hawkins. of refuge, some of whom have been keepers of houses of prostitution, and a number of whom have been discharged by said board for drunkenness and other offenses repeatedly committed, and have been reinstated notwithstanding said offenses, specifying the names. Various other specifications of official misconduct were also made. That thereupon notice was given each of them by the governor, of the filing of the charges, and a copy of the same and that he had appointed Wednesday, February 3, 1886, for the hearing of the same at his office in Columbus, at the hour of ten o'clock A. M., upon such testimony in support of or against said charges, as might be offered; and that, if they desired to answer the charges, they could do so on or before Saturday, January 30, 1886. That, on February 1, 1886, counsel for Hawkins applied to the governor for an extension of time to answer, by reason of his illness, filing the affidavit of Hawkins to that effect, and (Reis not having answered at the time fixed by the governor) and made an order that he should answer on February 3, and stated that he would at that time pass on the application of Hawkins for further time to answer, and fix a time for the trial of said cause. That Reis filed his answer on February 3, as had been fixed; Hawkins filed no answer, but his counsel informed the governor that he was unable to do so, by reason of his continued illness, and which was true; that thereupon, on the same day, February 3, the governor, without further notice to either of the parties, made an order removing them from office. The order was as follows: "OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, February 3, 1886. "In the matter of the charges and specifications against Morton L. Hawkins, Julius Reis and Will. A. Stevens, police commissioners of Cincinnati: Ordered by the governor this third day of February, 1886, certain charges and specifications of official misconduct having been preferred against M. L. Hawkins, Julius Reis, and W. A. Stevens, police commissioners, which charges and specifications The State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Hawkins. were duly filed in this office on the 25th day of January, and a copy of said charges and specifications having been served on each of said commissioners on January 27th, together with a notice of the filing of the same in this office, and that they (the said commissioners) would be given until January 30th to file answers or any other pleadings they might desire to make to said charges and specifications, and that the same would thereafter be heard at this office on February 3d; and said Will. A. Stevens having filed an answer, and said Morton L. Hawkins and Julius Reis having applied on that day for further time, to wit, until the 3d day of February, in which to file answers and for a postponement of hearing until the 10th of February, and having filed, in support thereof their respective affidavits. "After hearing the said application and further time for filing answers having been granted, and further hearing of the application for postponement until the 10th, for hearing, said charges having been continued until after the filing of their answers on the 3d day of February, and said matter coming on this day to be further considered, and it appearing that said Julius Reis has filed his answer to said charges, and that Morton L. Hawkins has failed to do so, and it further appearing from examination and consideration of said charges and specifications and answer thereto of Julius Reis, and from the affidavit of M. L. Hawkins that they, the said Reis and IIawkins, do each admit the appointment by them to a position on said police force of Mike Mullen, and also his subsequent promotion by their votes, as alleged in the charges aforesaid, and the said Mike Mullen being known to the governor as a man of notorious bad character and wholly unfit to hold any position on the police force, and it further appearing from the answer of W. A. Stevens that James S. White and others known to the governor to be men of notorious bad character and wholly unfit to hold any position, are holding positions on the same force, and are continued there by his authority, consent and approval, and it being in the judgment of the governor gross official misconduct to appoint and continue The State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Hawkins. on said force such unfit and improper men, and this official misconduct being as aforesaid admitted by each and all said police commissioners in manner and form as above stated, and no investigation or hearing, and no exercise of judicial power being necessary to the finding and establishing of the fact of said official misconduct, it is considered by the governor that the applications for further delay should be and hereby are overruled, without regard to other charges and specifications. "Said Morton L. Hawkins, Julius Reis and Will. A. Stevens should each and all of them be and they are hereby removed from their said office of police commissioners of Cincinnati. "In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my name and great seal of the State, to be affixed, at the city of Columbus this 3d. day of February 1886. [Signed] J. B. FORAKER, Governor of Ohio." Stevens had filed his answer to the charges on January 30, 1886, the day fixed by the governor in his notice to the commissioners of the filing of the same. The answer of Reis, as, also, that of Stevens, deny the truth of all the charges made to the governor in manner and form as stated; as does also, the affidavit of Hawkins, filed for an extension of time in which to answer. They all do, however, admit certain of the statements made against them in the matter of the appointments made by them, but with such qualifications as, in the judgment of each, removed any ground for the charges made against them of official misconduct. Thus, replying to the charges relative to the appointment of Michael Mullen, who had been convicted of a crime. and pardoned by the President of the United States, Reis says: "Your respondent acting upon what he supposed to be the law, to wit, that one having been pardoned of an offense of which he might have been found guilty, was restored as fully as if there had been no conviction; and that |