
    WILLIAM R. REAGAN v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [35 C. Cls. R. 90; 182 U. S. R., 419.]
    
      On the claima/nfs Appeal.
    
    The claimant, on the 25th of April, 1863, is appointed by the United States court for the Indian Territory commissioner under the Act May 8, 1890 (26 Stat. L., 98), and on the 1st day of March, 1895, he is one of the commissioners holding office under an existing appointment. April 17, 1895, an order is entered that in accordance with an act of Congress approved March 1,1895, he be continued in office. On the 31st January, 1896, a letter of the district judge is entered on the records of the court notifying him that he is no longer a commissioner, assigning specifically, as one of many reasons age and infirmity making him unfit; the letter is not sent to the claimant and no other statement of cause is made, neither is a hearing allowed him nor an opportunity to submit proof in his defense. He protests that the letter is insufficient to remove him, but a person designated by the district judge as commissioner in his place comes to the office with two armed deputy marshals and demands possession of the books, dockets, and papers belonging to the office.
    
      The Court below decides:
    1. The Act March 1,1895 (28 Stat. L., p. 695), increasing the number of commissioners provides “ That the present commissioner's shall be included in the number, and shall hold office under their existing appointments, subject to removal by the judge of the district where said commissioners reside, for causes prescribed by law." The power to prescribe by law is legislative, and can not be conferred on judicial officers.
    2. There are no causes prescribed by the statute for the removal of commissioners in the Indian Territory.
    3. By section 4 of the Act of March 1, 1895 (28 Stat. L., 696), the general laws of Arkansas were put in force in the Indian Territory, but they do not extend to the commissioners of the United States courts.
    4. Though there is no provision in a statute applicable to the removal of commissioners, it is unreasonable to suppose that the intent was to make them irremovable or that it was its policy to keep them in office until future legislation should name specific causes for removal.
    5. Where an act providing for the appointment and removal of commissioners specifies no causes for removal it imports that such causes will be adequate as would be elsewhere.
    6. United States commissioners are quasi judicial officers, performing their duties under the direction of the courts, and may, like referees or receivers, be removed without the formality of a hearing.
    7. A general power of removal given to a court by statute is discretionary, and its exercise can not be reviewed by another tribunal.
   The decision of the Court below is affirmed on the same ground.

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 27, 1901.  