does not supersede the at-will provision but appropriately qualifies it. ¶ 70. It is important to recognize, at the outset, that “at the will of’ or “at will” employment was a legal phrase and construct widely used in the United States not only in the early decades of the twentieth century, when the statute at issue here was enacted, but in the century preceding it. Indeed, in the last half of the nineteenth and early years of the twentieth centuries, courts throughout the country employed the phrase precisely as we do today, to convey the idea of an employment terminable at any time for any reason as opposed to one terminable only for cause. Although far too numerous to cite in their entirety, these early decisions include Gibbs v. City of Manchester, 61 A. 128, 129 (N.H. 1905) (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. Fitzgerald v. Mayor of New
holding that under state law the police commissioners are not authorized to remove police officers at will but for good and sufficient cause and after due hearing emphasis added holding that even if the plaintiff had asserted a cause of action under the virginia wrongful death act against the city police officers the police officers would be entitled to sovereign immunity holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry holding that mayors power  to remove is for cause after an opportunity to be heard and observing that not allowing a hearing would render the safeguard  a hollow device and a sham because a removal could actually be made at the will of the removing power emphasis added holding that the state police is a state agency