The record-union., 1895-07-25
TIE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES FILED.
Accusations Against the Supervisors
Argued,
Attorney Devlin Springs a Gigantic
Demurrer Upon the Prosecut-
ing Attorneys.

Supervisors Morrison, Curtis, Jenkins
and Todd were taken up in the Superior
Court yesterday morning, Judge Catlin
presiding.
K. t. Devlin moved that the accusa-
ton against Thomas Jenkins be dis
missed on the ground that the offense
was charged to have been committed in
1894. during his former term of office,
and that he could not be proceeded
against after his term of office had ex-
PRED in order to remove him from Office.
lie cited California Supreme Court de-
cision in the case OF the Sheriff of Glenn
County, who succeeded himself and
against whom charges had been pre-
senled for acts charged to have been COM
United during his first term. The court
held That the purpose OF the law was 10
remove an officer from office and that he
could not be removed during a subse-
quent term for what he had done during
his first term.
Mr.. Devlin argued that no charges
were made against Mr.. Jenkins during
his present term Of office and that there
fore the court had no jurisdiction in The
matter.
S. S. Holl held that as the proceedings
were to remove Jenkins from office, as
long as no interregnum had occurred he
was still liable to be removed. He was
still impeached and could be proceeded
against under the law for impeachment
of State officers. The object of the law
was simply to removed an unit person from
office. lie quoted from Louisiana case,
which he claimed WAS similar, and read
from several cases alluded to in it.
The court asked him how he could
show that there was not distinction be-
tween the cases of state officials cited,
where in addition to removal from office,
the impeached party was by the law dis
qualified from ever holding Office again,
and the cases OF county officers. i'll which
no punishment disqualification existed,
as in the California Supreme Court de-
cision cited by MIR. Devlin.
Mr.. Holl replied that if this action had
been brought under Section ~ of the
Penal Code the defendants contention
might apply. The Supreme Court had
decided that 8 person proceeded against
under Section ~ was not entitled to q
jury trial. In this case, however, there
must be jury and the proceedings must
be in the regular form. lie thought the
decision of the California Supreme Court
quoted by Mr.. Devlin was without due
consideration and upon preconceived
notion OF what the law was.
Mr.. Devlin said that the Impeachment
Of officers which Judge Holl had referred
to was one thing, and this case was an
other. This WAC the simple question of a
statute of California providing for the re-
moval Of an officer during his term of
office. The cases quoted by Mr.. Holl
had no relation TO il at all. The case of
Secretary of War Belknap, which had
been cited, was rather an argument
against the position taken by MIR. Holl
than in his favor.
This case arises, not under the Consti-
tuition or the common law, not under the
idea that man is prohibited from ever
holding office again because he is unfit to
do so, but under an express statute for
the removal of civil officers for wrong
doing. If they are removed under it,
there IS nothing to prohibit them being
elected and holding the Office in the
future. The sections of the code quoted
by MIR. Holl are simply two ways of in
stituting proceedings for removal, Sec
ton ~ providing that an individual can
bring charges, while Section 15S relates to
charges by the Grand Jury.
Under the latter it becomes the duty of
the court, in case Of conviction, to de-
prive the accused of office. OF what
office? Clearly of the office which he
was holding at the time the alleged
wrong-doing occurred.
Judge Catlin said he would confess
that were it not for the Supreme Court
decision he should decide against Mr..
Devlin's position. but under that decision
he should take time to Investigate the
question and announce his conclusion at
some future time. 1t would, of course,
be the controlling decision, although his
Judgment did not agree with ii.
MIR. Devlin then read the answer of the
defendants, and the District Attorney adj
United that there were some witnesses
before the Grand Jury whose names did
not appear in the complaint.
Mr.. Devlin then took up the point that
the Indictment must be found by twelve
Grand Jurors, and there was no evidence
that that number had done so. The fact
that the foreman of the Grand Jury had
handed this accusation to the District At
torney does not show that to be the fact
He might do so of his own individual
will. 1t must be done either by indict-
ment or by vote Of the jury. The fore
man has no powers not conferred by law,
and his signature on this accusation does
not authenticate il as an act of the Jury.
If this be an indictment it must comply
with the provisions of the law, but no
names Of witnesses have been Endorsed
upon It,
District Attorney Ryan said the accu-
satons were presented to the District
in open court, all the mem bers
of the Grand jury being present. There
was no record in the court minutes to
that effect, but they were so delivered, he
said.
Mr.. Devlin also objected that the accu-
satiOns were not filed with the clerk of
the court within the proper time The
District Attorney said that they were in
dorsed as having been filed at the proper
time; but Mr.. Devlin said that they were
not so Endorsed until after his answer was
filed.
The court overruled the objection that
the names OF witnesses were not Endorsed
on the accusations, but said he thought
he should sustain the objection that de-
PENDANTS term of Office during which the
acts complained of were alleged to have
been committed had expired. He wished,
however, to take time to examine the Su-
preme Court decision.
The District Attorney and Judge John
son testified to the accusations being
handed to the former in open court, all
the grand jurors being present.
All the objections except the one taken
under consideration were then overruled
by the court.
Mr., Devlin then said he would file @
demurrer, which had been ready for some
time. but for which further time had
been granted him when the case was last
in court.
1t was as follows:
In the Superior Court, County of Saora-
mento, State OF California. The People
OF the State of California VS.. j. w. Todd.
Comes now the above-nalned defendant
and objects TO the legal sufticiency of the
complaint or accusation herein filed, and
demurs thereto, and each and every
article thereof and as grounds of OBJ
lection to such suthciency, and as grounds
of demurrer. assigns the following:
l. That said complaint and accusation
does not state facts sufficient 10 constitute
a cause of action, ground of complaint or
any otfense.
2. That said complaint and accusation,
or accusation fails To show nv sufficient