The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-10-26
The ARGUMENT CONCLUDED.
Continued from Eighth Page3

i
,-a code being all sufficient, the decisions
-. the supreme courts of this state and
of the United states having all been to
4 -rs effect. The reference there to the
,.aeation of offices by council by removal
d. held to imply an existing right on the
/ mart Of council to %acate Offices In this
+I.anner. The common law right of re-
r55yal as incident to appointment was dis
Cussed al length and numerous authori-
ti.s to this effect cited.
MIR. Adams said he wished to show that
7-ige Sweat had passed the restraining
order inadvertently, that no case was
made out by the other side. the citys, and
that they could have so shown had they
been given an opportunity to do so.
Mr.. Lawrence stated that practically
7he whole question hinged on whether
council had the jurisdiction, to try the
case. practically waving the technicalties
in it. He held that if council should pro
coed to try the commissioners, and should
nut them out of office the commissioners
would be without remedy.
Mr.. Adams contended that the remedy
was by certiorari, and that the commits
sioners having this remedy, were not en-
titled to a writ of prohibition. He referred
70 Mr. duBignon's remarks upon partisan
ship, saying the question of partisanship
could be passed upon at a hearing of a
writ of certiorari. He was surprised that
counsel should have remarked upon the
fact that charges were to be heard by
the same body as that which preferred
them. How would it proceed to remove a
marshal or any other officer who had been
guilty of gross misconduct he asked
Judge Falligant said that he understood
this to have been merely a criticism on the
part of Mr.. duBignon, and not a legal
position.
Mr. Adams referred to a number of au-
IA 10 he affaa hot t1,o
removal is incident to the power of APP
pointment He held that the common law
powers remained and the fact that these
powers were not specified in the charter
of the city did not annul these powers to
the city. The power to remove, he con-
tended was enjoyed by council unless such
power was specifically denied to il.
Mr. Way interrupted Mr.. Adams to say
that certain powers were delegated to the
municipal corporation by the legislature
and all powers not specially delegated
were reserved.
Mr. Adams said that the city of Savan-
nah had just as much right TO remove
one Of its officers as a private corporation
has 10 remove any of its officers The
code is very broad and emphatic as to the
powers of a municipal corporation.
Mr. Adams referred to Mr. duBignons
position that section 1858 of the code was
not law, because there was no evidence
that he had stated his intention of pre-
sentng authorities to this effect, which,
however had not been done. The great
bulk of the code applicable to the city
of Savannah was adopted in 1860 for the
first time, Mr.. Adams sid, and it is a
fact that great part of the code has
no notation showing previous statutes
Whatever is found in the code is the law
of the state and has been 50 recognized
since its adoption.
Mr.. Adams construction of the section
in question was that it was a recognition
Of the right of the city of Savannah to
remove officers for cause an ordinance to
this effect having existed since 1889 He
referred to section 229 of the code, which
provides how offices are vacated, which
provides that an Office may be vacated by
judgment, by the decision of a competent
tribunal.
MIR. Lawrence held that this applied
when an officer had been convicted of
an offense involving moral turpitude.
Mr. Adams criticised the citation by Mr.
duBignon of a decision by Judge Moses
OF South Carolina afterwards governor
OF that state, and last heard of in Sing
Sing penitentiary.
No decision had been quoted. he said
contrary to the proposition that the right
of removal is incident to the right of ap-
pointment. The contention was that this
power had been conferred upon the corpo-
ration, but even if it had not. it had this
power on the broader ground of the COM
mon law that the power of removal is
incident to the power of appointment.
MIR Adams said that he admitted that
the legislature could say to the city of Sa-
Vannah that it could not remove these Of
ticers for any cause. but it had not so
said, and the supposition was that it had
not so intended. The spirit of the funda-
mental law of the state is that all officers
are amenable to the people
The position taken by the other side,
that an officer could not be removed for
any offense, unless such power of reno
val is specifically conferred, was strongly
contested.
Authorities were cited to the effect that
whatever appears in the code is law, UNI
less afterwards repealed.
Judge Falllgant said that he was some
what doubtful on this point. He recalled
that he and Judge Chisholm fought to
the death" the idea that the legislature
could put anything in the code that did
not exist as law before the adoption of
the code, but were overruled by the SUI
preme court They carried it to the SUI
preme court of the United States, which
sustained the supreme court of Georgia,
consequently he was obliged to hold that
whatever appeared In the code was law.
Judge Falllgant remarked, incidentally,
that he did not consider this question
anxious to get at all the law bearing on
the case. This remark was brought out
by the discussion of the effect of the adop-
ton of the common law as a part of the
code, Mr.. Lawrence and Mr. Adams diff
fering as to the power conferred by the
common law with reference to the removal
Of officers. Mr.. Lawrence contended that
ell the powers were not vested In the city
council, but some of them remained with
the people themselves, they being the cor
poraton, and that it was necessary for
action to be taken by the whole body in
a matter of this kind.
Mr.. Adams contended that the practical
result of this would be that no matter
how badly a city official might conduct
himself he could not be put out of his Of
flee without general town meeting. This
certainly, he contended, could not be APP
plicable to an officer appointed by the
mayor and aldermen. Dillon, High, Mi
nor and other authorities were cited by
Mr.. Adams in support of the several po-
sltions taken by him.
The argument was an able one, and was
followed with interest by the members of
% hlr