Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-08-21
POWER OF REMOVAL
Application Of E1-sMpping Commissioner
Dryden for Mandamus.
Claim That Secretary Carlisle Had No
Power to Dismiss Him Except for
Unhtness OF Neglect.

Judge Cole this morning considered the
application of Lyttleton T. Dryden, late
United States shipping commissioner for the
port Of Baltimore, Nd, for writ Of man
damus restraining the Secretary. Of the
Treasury from removing, the applicant and
appointing Albert c. Kerwin in his place
Messrs. Thos 8. Hodson AMI Edward 8.
Kines OF the Baltimore bar appeared on
behalf Of Mr.. Dryden, Secretary Carlisle
being represented by Assistant Attorney
General Whitney.
The Argument for Dryden.
Mr.. Kines explained that since the peti-
ton was filed by Mr.. Dryden, several days
ago. the petitioner. who at that time was in
possession Of the office. had been removed
and Mr.. Kerwin had taken possession Of the
Office. Mr. Dryden, stated Mr.. Kines, was
appointed in 1891 and had performed the
duties Of his office in such a manner as to
win the confidence and respect Of every one,
the Treasury Department officials included
In support CT his statement
Mr.. Kines read petitions and letters from
citizens Of Baltimore, asking that Mr. Dry
den be retained in his Office, because of his
excellent character and special fitness for
that the statute vesting the appointment of
shipping commissioners in the Secretary of
the Treasury gave that officer authority to
remove shipping commissioner only after
established. That had not been done, said
Mr.. kines, in the present case, and Mr.
Dryden had been removed to make room for
the appointment Of man Of different
political faith, one In sympathy with the
politics Of the present administration.
The Secretnry's Position.
Mr.. Whitney described at length the
duties of shipping commissioners the man.
ner of their appointment. and contended
that as the removal and appointment of
shipping commissioners was whslly in the
discretion Of the Secretary Of the Treasury
that discretion could not be reviewed or
interfered with through mandamus or
otherwise.
Mr.. Whitney intimated that thersecretary
OF the Treasury could show that he re-
moved Mr.. Dryden because be had reached
the conclusion that the best interests Of the
service justified such action! But" ex-
planned Mr.. Whitney, II do not wish this
case to be decided and disposed Of upon
such a showing. for that would be an end
OF the matter. The only interest Mr. Dry
den can have in the office IL atpecuniary
one. and, therefore, the only remedy he has
Is an application to the Court of Claims in
suit to recover the salary. or fees, Of
which. through his removal, he has been
deprived" '''.'
Citing numerous authorities In support
OF his contention, Mr.. Whitney argued that
a mandamus could not be used to restore
an official of the government to a position
from which he bad been. removed. For those
reasons. claimed Mr.. Whitney, the Secre-
tary should not be reQSlired 10 file a formal
answer In the present case, and IN -cencau-.
sion, contended that~the applicati for a
rule TO show cause should be denied.
MIR. HOdsOn's Contention.
Mr.. Hodson made the final argument in
the case, stating that, generally speaking,
the right of appointment gave a right Of re-
moval. But in the present case, he con-
tended, the law made an exception, and ne
argued at considerable length that the Sec
retary Of the Treasury could only exercise
the power of removal after the filing of
formal charges and after an opportunity
has been given the party charged to refute
the charges. Upon the conclusion of Mr.
Hodson's argument Judge Cole took the pa
pers, and announced that he would render
his decision at later day.