nr as mvss. 23
this investigation involves charges which reflect upon the character of _
the respondent, and may affect his valued interest in the oiiice which
he now holdsgthe court should proceed with great caution, and carefully
observe principles of law well settled by reason and judicial decisions.
This court certainly has the right to remove commissioners of the cir-
cuit court from office. The power of removal is incident to the power
of appointment, where no definite tenure of office is fixed by law. This
question needs no further consideration, as it is settled by adjudged
cases. Ex parte Hannon, 13 Pet. 230; Blake v. [L S., 103 U. S. 227;
Ex parte Wall, 107 U. S. 265, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 569.
No special mode of procedure for removal has been prescribed by stat-
utc, and the precedents of the common law may properly be followed.
Any mode of procedure would accomplish the ends of justice, if the re-
spondent has reasonable notice of the charges against him, and is af-
forded full opportunity for explanation and defense. While the appoint-
ing court has the power to remove commissioners at pleasure, such dis-
cretion should be a sound and legal one, and such power should never
be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised; e Commissioners can materially
assist the court in the administration of public justice, and, by long expe-
rience, they become more familiar with the forms of legal procedure, and
more discreet and efficient in the performance of their important oflicial
duties. As no tenure of oiiice is defined by law, they may well pre-
sume that they will be retained so long as they are discreet and efficient,
and conduct themselves with propriety. _
It is allimportant to good government, and the public interests, that _
an officer who exercises important judicial functions shouldbe free in
thought, and independent in judgment, when he acts in the administra-
tion of justice and the enforcement of the law. The course of justice
would be impeded, and the efhciency of the commissioner would be
greatly impaired, if his freedom of action was restrained by continual ·
apprehensions-of removal from office on account of honest oiiioial mis-
takes and errors of judgment, or by judicial caprice, or by the clamor of
individuals excited by personal prejudices andhostility. While human
nature is very imperfect, and continually liable to error, there are some
just principles of action, and certain proprieties of conduct, established
by law, or by a virtuous and enlightened public sentiment, that should
be observed and practiced by persons exercising judicial functions. Hu-
man observation and experience have fully demonstrated the factthat tem-
perate, moral, and industrious habits render all men more useful and suc-
cessful in the various pursuits of life; but neither the law nor general public
_ sentiment regard them as indispensable qualifications for onice. I will
not, in this case, discuss this question in its moral or social aspects, but
merely say that, in my opinion, occasional drunkenness lessens the in-
Huence and eiiieiency of a commissioner, and that habitual drunkenness,
or intoxication when in the discharge of ofiicial duty, is a sufficient cause
for his removal from oiiice. `
A commissioner should not be an active partisanin political contests,
but, as a citizen, he may properly express his candid opinions about can-