The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1869-11-16

Before The board Of IaJlic Works o.
West Virginia.
CLOSING ARGUMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
ny B, STANTON, ESQ,
Gentlemen cChe Board Of Public Works
We desire in the outset OF our reply Ia
Mr.. Ferrels counsel, TO enter our solemn
protest against tho character which this
case has been made 10 assume by The
course pursued by tho newspaper press oil
the city.
Tho arguments on our sido aro pub.
lished by tho organ Of tho Democratic
party, md on tho other side by tho organ
of the Republican party, go that The
reader Of neither paper can SEQ both sides.
When our opening argument was pre-.
pared, il was requested for publication in
the Register.
Wc replied that wo could not consent
to give the case disappearance Of par
tisan controversy by publishing it in tho
Register, unless they would furnish a
nrooc-Bheet copy Of it for the ISTELLIuES.
GER, If tho INTELLIGESCER would publish
it, in time for its publication in that paper
on tho same morning ii was published In
the Register. We informed the publishers
ofthe lNTELLIGENcER Of the arrangement,
and were told in reply that they did not
think the public fell sufficient interes! in
tho matter to justify tho publication Of
tho arguments.
We then informed tho publishers Of tho
Register that We should expect them To
publish the arguments Of Mr.. Forrel's
counsel, and our reply. They said they
intended to publish tho arguments on
both sides in full. 1t now turns out, how.
ever, that tho Register refuses to publish
tho arguments Of Mr.. Fcrrel's counsel,
and tho lNTELILGEScER published them,
although they occupy nearly three times
as much space as ours, which they do
clined to publish because they did not
think tho subject Of sufficient interest to
justify its publication.
We make this statement for tho pur-
pose ofwRshing our hands Of all respon>
sibility for the partisan character which
tho case has been made to assume.
We ore engaged in the performance OF
o private professional duty, and have no
purpose or intention to furnish capital or
stock in trade for any political party.
But if in the proper and legitimate dis.
charge Of that duty, VIC say or do anything
that can DO used for such purposes, We
cannot help it, and We shall ondeavor not
10 fail in the discharge Of that duty from
my apprehension Of tho consequences to
the party to which We belong.
The argument Of Mr.. Ferrel's counsel
sets out with tho assumption that tho
Board Of Public Works has no power to
remove Superintendent Of the Cumber.
land Road, except for such cause as is
specified in the Code for tho removal Of
an officer elected or appointed for term
prescribed by law.
If this be so, then Mr.. Ferrell holds
bis Office for life, or during good beha.
vior.
And where does the board get tho pow.
or to remove him Tor cause2
The same law which prescribes the
causes for which an officer may DO rc-
moved, prescribes the tribunal by which
the power shall be exercised.
Sherifs and clerks may be removed by
the Circuit Court. Recorders and other
county officers may be removed by tho
Board OF Supervisors. Judges OF tho
Circuit Court and Of tho Court of Appeals
may DO removed by the Legislature.
But there is no tribunal authorized by law
to hear charges and remove superin-
tcndent of tho Cumberland road for mis-
conduct in Office, or for any Of the causes
prescribed by tho Code. If tho point is
well taken, they might undoubtedly have
plead TO the jurisdiction Of the board
The power of removal from Office for
malfea8ance or misteaSance is q judicial
power which cannot DO exercised by the
Executive Department Of tho Government
unless it is expressly conferred by the
constitution or some low made in pur-
suance Of it.
A quo warranto praying judgment Of
forfeiture might DO issued by the Court Of
Appeals. But certainly the Board Of
Public Works have no such power. q z
1t is q matter Of history that no Super
intendent of the Cumberland Road ever
was removed on charges Of misconduct
in Office, but in almost, if not quito every
instance, removals and appointments have
been made from political considerations
alone. -r. ....rI sTCs
Lunsford was removed the first time
because no was Wing, and, Bedilion was
appointed because ho was a Democrat
Bedillion was removed because he was
supposed to DO rebel sympathizer, and
Lunslord was appointed because he was
Union man. Luns(ord was removed
again because he was o Conservative, and
Eerrel was appointed because hc was a
Republican.
We know it is stated that the law has
been changed since Ferrel was appointed.
That is true. But nobody ever imgained
that the change in the law mado any
change in the tenure Of Office Of thoSuper.
intendent. ..r.-
The road Is still under the control Of
the Board of Public Works. And it is
indispensable to the proper exercise Of
tho power vested in them, that tho super.
intendent should be removable ut their
pleasure. He is the. mere agent or ser.
want Of tho Board, ind they have tho
Same power over him that merchant has
over his clerk. '
90 If he does not suit thom, they may dis
miss him ut any time without assigning
any reason.
But gentlemen say you should not as
members Of tho Board Of Public Works
remove for any cause, which you would
not us members Of tho Legislature soy
was good cause for removal. !
This is not truo to the extent claimed
for it. The people may elect all inelli.
cient clerk or sheriff, whom the court
would DO reluctant to remove before the
expiration Of his brief term, in tho hope
that Of the expiration Of his term more
efficient officer would DO elected to sue
coed him. " .ga 1s#.-
But if he was appointed by the court,
and held for life, unless removed, tho
court would not hesitate 10 remove him.
The law, however, is broad enough for
our purpose, and we havp no objection 10
the Board adopting it as tho rule by which
they shall be governed in tho exercise Of
their discretion.
Tho Constitutional provision is, that
"all officers elected or appointed under