The Roanoke daily times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1895-1897, 1896-05-03
THE CASE OF MIR. BRYAN
'u"ke wood Affirms HIS Right 20 Re
mOv0 Him

CASE OF MIR. BRYAN.
'u"ke wood Affirms HIS Right 70 Re
move Him.
On yesterday Judge John w. Woods
OF she musings court, denied thu nett,
won OF .. 4. Bryan, which asked for
tne order OF Mr.. Brysn's removal ~.
the office Of commissioner of .coomS.a
70 be revoked; @0'oun's
An appeal will be taken, and motion
for suspension of the order will nroh.
ably be made at an early day.
IL was agreed between counsel for
Messrs. Bryan and Hart that no sd-
vantage should be taken Of the fact that
the term OF the court was to expire
yesterday, in the matter of filing err
ceptiona, ana asking for suspension
OF tne order until the case can be an
pealed to the supreme court.
Following is the opinion:
"Ex-parte Bryan.
ION 22nd April an order WAS entered
by me appointing John N. Hart com.
missioner OF accounts for this court, and
as incident thereto removing j. r.
Bryan. Jr. Counsel for Mr.. Bryan now
present his petition asking that said
oroer be vacated, as 1t 1t was entered
without authority of law.
The petitioners counsel argue:
Q') Where the statute law of o
State provides method and cause for
removal OF en- officer, notwiths.sndinp
no tenure OF office is fixed, then suoh
omcer can only be removed as the
statute prescribes.
:" e. They also contend in the second
place that sec. S21 v. G. 1887 "a
amended by acts 1889 30 o. s prescribes
the method of and causes for removal OF
com m iBstOnor of accourta
"On the other asnd counsel for Mr..
Hart claim the true rule OF law to be
where an officer Ia appointed and no
period liked for his term to expire, then
the power Of removal "a incident to the
power of appointment and the officer
holds at the will and pleasure of the ap-
pointing power, Notwithstanding there
may be general statutes providing for
the removal OF officers.
Holding the view which shall here.
matter mention, 1t ia not necessary to q
accession OF this case to say which Of
snese views Is the correct one, although
sm OF the opinion that where q statute
prescflbeS the causes for removal of an
officer. then he can be removed for such
causes only.
The sole question remaining for our
consideration, therefore, is, does our law
provide for removal of the officer in
question:; or, in other words. does Sec
tion SCI as amendedsapply to this casep
We are of the opinion that 1t does not
This was an enlarging statute, which
was intended to add to rather than take
from the Jurisdiction Of the court. It is
true that in certain sense O commis-
sioner OF accounts is q city officer, but
not In contemplation of this act. In my
Judgment he Is an officer of the court, is
appointed by the court Tor judge) and
removable 1T Its pleasure.
III thought mistake had been m sde
should be only too glad to correct IL.
l am aware that upon this question, as
upon 30 many legal questions, there is
room for argument ON both sides, and
the business OF the court Is to adhere to
the view which seems to IL the sounder
construction. While not an AUTHORITY IL
might not be amiss to edd that several
years ago, when purposed giving Mr..
Bryan the office in question, and which
l afterward did give him, there wss
some doubt In my mind IS to my right
OF removal and so consulted Mr.. Minor
on me subject, who gave itas his opin-
ion that the right was unauestioned,
although his attention was not spe-
cially called to section s2l referred to.
II am glad, however, that in q proper
proceeding an appeal to a higher court
Is open to the petitioner, where II an
Injustice la done him in THE decision,
1--WE are all fallible) he csn be righted.
Holding the foregoing views therefore
sne prayer OF the petitioner must be
denied"