Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during part of Tyler session, 1859, Austin session, 1859, and part of Galveston session, 1860. Volume 24. Page: 263

                                
AUSTIN, 1859.                    263
Keenan v. Perry.
not be two clerks at the same time. The offices would be inconsistent
with each other, and could not stand together. If
the power to appoint a clerk, was vested exclusively in the
District Court, and the office was held, at the discretion of the
court, as we think it was; then this court can have no control
over the appointment, or removal, or entertain any inquiry into
the grounds of removal. If the judge is chargeable with any
abuse of his power, this is not the tribunal to which he is amenable."
(Id. 261.) The principle is fully maintained, that where
the power of appointment is exclusively vested in any tribunal,
or department of the government, and the office is held at the
discretion of the tribunal, the mere appointment of a successor,
is, per se, a removal of the prior incumbent, so far, at least, as
the right to the office is concerned. The law was silent, as to
the power of removal. But "all offices, (the court say,) the
tenure of which is not fixed by the constitution, or limited by
law, must be held, either during good behaviour, or, (which is
the same thing, in contemplation of law,) during the life of the
incumbent; or must be held at the will and discretion of some
department of the government, and subject to removal at pleasure."

In the present case, the office, though its tenure is limited by
law, is held at the discretion of the governor. The power of
appointment and removal, is exclusively vested in him; and the
office, consequently, is necessarily held at his discretion. It is
not intended that he shall have or exercise, a capricious and
arbitrary discretion; but a discretion governed by law, and to
be exercised, only in the cases provided by law.  Still, the office
is held at his discretion, not subject to revision, but subject only
to the rules prescribed by law, for his government; and if, in
its exercise, he should be chargeable with an abuse of his power,
as the court said, in the case just cited, this is not the tribunal
to which he is amenable. The court has no control over the appointment
or removal. The appellant was appointed and commissioned,
and notice was given by the governor, to the appellee,