Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1897-10-23
INJUNCTION CASES
Argued in the u. S. Court, Judge
Jackson Presiding.

Jackson Presiding.
Monday and Tuesday were devoted
to the argument of the injunction
cases in the Federal Court by Senator
Charles J. Faulkner for Messrs. Berry,
Butler and Ruckman, while Hon.
John w. Mason and District Attorney
Gaines represented the Government.
All of Monday was consumed by
Senator Faulkner in his closing adj
dress. So voluminous were the argu-
ments that we shall not attempt to
give more than the merest outline,
Senatoy Faulkner spoke for five
hours, the first four being occupied
with stump speech, evidently in
tended tor political effect, in the hope
to insinuate himself once more, il
possible, into the good graces OF his
former political henehmen, the last
hour being devoted to the case.
Collector Whites action was ami
madverted upon in scathing terms as
were all Of the aifidavits for the Gov
ernment. Sophistry and subterfuge
were resorted to, he being an adept
in that particular. He did not neglect
to cast compliments and literary
bouquets at the Court nor to show that
the position he assumed, for the
nonce, upon the subject of civil ser
vice was that occupied by all of the
great statesmen of the Nation, OF
which he (reading between the lines)
is the chief, although at the outset he
stated that he was not in love with
the system.
The constitutionality of the civil
service law was shown to be beyond
question. And to clinch the argu-
ment reference was made to the de-
cision of His Honor in the case of the
Deputy Marshalls against Marshall
Thompson.
1t was utterly impossible for him
to discover how it is possible for the
Internal Revenue Bureau to revoke
the assignment of a gauger or store
keeper without that revocation being
in fact discharge.
In the cases before the court the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
had revoked the assignments of H.
c. Berry, a gauger, and Butler and
Ruckman, storekeepers. They con-
sidered it discharge and appealed to
the Court for relief. He admitted
that the court could not interfere with
an executive officer in the discharge
of his duties; that gaugers and store
keepers can be transferred from one
distillery to another or from one col
lection district to another; that the
law permitted the Commissioner to
keep in commission an excess OF IS
per cent, but insisted that the excess
must not be beyond IS per cent, anc
at the same time denied the right to
dismiss anyone from the service; in
sisted that none can be appointed
unless certified by the Civil Service
Commission and none discharged ex-
cept for cause. He failed to explain
what should be done with these Off
GERS in case a distillery ceased to OPP
crate, which would necessarily in
crease the excess. All these things
and many others, pertinent to the
case were studiously avoided.
Mr.. Mason said the statement made
by the opposing counsel that the col
lector had exceeded his per cent of
recommendations for appointment in
the revenue service was not a matter
for the courts to investigate. He
argued that the injunctions should he
dissolved on these grounds; that the
court has no jurisdiction to review
the official action o. an executive
officer who has exercised the discre-
ton conferred upon him by law; that
there has been no removal or dis
missal or any attempt to dismiss or
reduce the rank of the officers COM
planning, and therefore the rules OF
the civil service commission prohibit
ting these things from being done for