Telegram-herald., 1886-06-18
REPUBLICANS WIN
The Cincinnati Board OF Public
Affairs Sustained.
lyRCILYPl VOTE n THE COURT
A Summary OF the Replies Of Both
Parties-Ibs Constituiionslity of
the La~ Establishes ~ the
Decision.

ColGasus. o.. Juns I-.-fhe case If tae
STATE of Ohie ca 1el. Charles Herroa ei a.
versus Thomas q Saith q a. or a. ~ is
better known ths quo warranto case reia-
tive t0 the Cincinnati Board Of fuehc
Aaairs. was deli led tonight, aua lhe rump
senate Is sustained - strict party vote.
Judges Spear MinshsA @nd Johnson TIE
Republicans asserting aud Judge Ovens
and Follelte. the Democrats disssauuE. Al
the beginning of Tie case the relatars. uT
the Board Of Public Works. filed formal
petition avowing that a. body they we're
dulg elected and legally qnanhel and thai
the Board If Public Afialrs AaTe usurlel
aud aud attempted a. perform Their func-
uons and duties IA tins the Board .Qi lab-
BE Affairs licd an answer in b1ei ss ioiioss.
That on Nav a.. ls>o TIE Legislature passed
an act repeating the las which established
the Board Of Puohc Works and created ln
It's stead 4 Boari oi Paolic Aaairs. o. per
form the duties and to have the powers
heretofore eujoyej by the Board of Public
Works. aud giving Governor Foraker tile
power 10 appoint nFe members oi tie
Board OF Public Affairs and tuat these
members were regularly appointed aud
dnly qualified under this act
To this answer the reiaiofs tled reply
consisting OF fve paragraphs Tie nrrt
paragraph denies that the act CrcAuhE TIE
Board OF Public works bad been repealed
OF that the board had been abolished, o.
that the names Of members thereof had
expired. The SECOND anu third paragraphs
are about the same as the hrsi IA substance.
/ The fourth avOws that II the pretended act
OF MAY Il was ever passed or became law
il is unconstitutional because the power 70
/ appoint municipal officers cannot be vested
/ in the Governor OF the State The nth
/ AYERS the pretended act Is null and that us
+ pretended passage, signing aud hllnr oi The
same in the office OF the Secretary oi State
was part of a conspiracy entered into
/ by the President Of the senate and
/ the seventeen Republican members 10
abolish among other things the Board oi
/ Public Works aud establish a Board OF
/ Public Affairs, and that the conspiracy was
carried out ia the following manner. That
on Nav : whie all the Democratic Senators
except Nancieaf were absent and while the
seventeen Republican Senators less than a
\ quorum, were present. the President of the
I Senate with the advice and consent Of the
seventeen Republican Senators. knowingly,
corruptlv. uulaWfully. frsudulenty and In
violation of the constitution and rules oi
/ the Senate then ia force. caused the clerk %
enter on what was purpOrted 10 be
| the Senate journal. but which WAS not such
in fact the pretended adoption OF re>olu-
ton directing that Senators Brashears, Hop
pie. Kuehnert and Wilson bad not been
/ duly elected and were not entitled 20 seais
and that liardacre, Richardson. klrcbnei
/ and NcGill had been duly elected and were
entitled TO seats; that the vote on the pre-
tended adoption of this resolution was not
taken by ayes and nays. as
required bv the rules Of the
Senate; that after the pretended adoption
of the resolution on May j., while ths
/ Democratic members were absent, the pre-
tended Senate adopted law repeating tns
act creating the Board Of Public Works anC
passed bill creating a Board Of Puhli,
Affairs and that these measures were voted
for by only seventeen duly elected memoer'
less than quorum. that from May Z,
the alleged adjournment Of the pretended
Senate there never was quorum present
IN the reply the defendants entered DE
murrer 90 paragraphs one. two. three and
four and motion TO strike out paragraph
five The decision of the court sustain'
both the motion and the demurrer ans
declares the legality Of the organization %
the rump Senate and the power Of the GOV
ernor to appoint officers Of a municipality
in the extent of deciding that The late
Senate was legally constituted. The decis
ion in this case establishes the constitution
ality OF the Dow law