Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-09-11
Arguments Heard in Case Of Woods
VS.. Postmaster General.
LEGAL DEFINITION OF PUBLIC OFFICE
Demurrer Entered by the Govern
ment and Motion to Dismiss.
JUDGE DEFERs. DECISION


Woods of Louisville KY. against the Post
master General and First Assistant Post
master General Perry 8. Heath, instituted
several days ago in order to test the allcg-
cd right of All executive officer of the gov
eminent to remove subordinate official
from the classified service, against whom
no charges have been preferred, was taken
up before Justice Cox in the Equity Court
at II o'clock this morning. On behalf Of
the government District--Attorrey Davis
and Assistant Attorney General Boyd APP
peared. while Messrs- Ii. N. Low and f.
H. Stevens represented Mr.. Woods.
Just before the case was taken up the
court room berg well crowded by govern
ment officials. attorneys and other interest
ed persons. Mr.. Davis filed the demurrer
which The Star stated would be filed.
me demurrer was as follows:
The said defendants and each of them,
by protestation. not ccnfessing or admit
ting to be true the matters and things
or any of them in the said bill of COM
piafnt contained as SET forth, DO demur
TO the said bill of complaint and for
cause of demurrer say that the COM
piainant has not in and by his bill
as does or ought to eDt:tle him to the relief
prayed. or to any relief in the premises.
therefore, the said defendants and each
Oh them pray Judgment of the court whetn-
or they ought to make any other or further
answer TO the said bill of complaint and
heir COSTS
In opening the governments case Mr..
LAWS explained that while he is person.
auy In favor of the civil service law rules
ana regulations. and would indeed, make
the law more effective, yet 1t was his duty
70 ask the court to apply the law and en-
iorce II as 1t exists. The effect of the
demurrer filed, stated Mir. Davis, was to
deny the contention of Mr.. Woods that he
Is entitled to the relief he seeks which Is
an injunction against the defendants pro-
superintendent of mails in the Louisville
posi- cnice. on the ground, the petitioner
eiinmed, that, being in the Classified list,
ne cannot be removed or degraded to an
INFERIOR position without cause
Mr. Davis submitted as his first proposi-
tioh mat Mr. Woods has no standing in a
court OF equity. The naked question in the
ease, said Mi. Davis, is whether the Judi
cidi department of the government can step
IN in case of removal or degradation in
rank, the defendants contanding of course
that II cannot. In support of this coaten-
.ioh MT Davis read number OF author
tues, all OF which, he submitted clearly
and fully maintain, the position that
court of equity has no jurisdiction in the
matter OF removal. from. appointment to-
or supervision of public offices
A most important question in the case
said Mr.. Davis. u.s. What is a public office.
Answering the question. he stated that q
public Office is not vested right nor is it
a property right. it having none of the
correctly defined public office in a legal
way, Mr. Davis read a great r,any author
tiles. al iof which, he CLAIMED, sustained his
definition.
Referring to the civil service law Mr.
Davis characterized il as an interference
by the legislative branch of the govern
ment with the rights and functions of the
executive branch He explained that he
did not say this Extensively and he again
referred to the contention of the govern
ment that there is nothing in the civfl
service law which sustains- the position
that the judicial department of the govern
ment can interfere with the executive
branch
In closing his argument Mr. Davis re-
ferred to the, recent opinion of Mr.. Justice
Jackson. but insisted that it should not be
taken as a precedent in the present case,
and he asked that the case be dismissed.
Mr.. Woods Contention.
Mr.. Davis argument was a comparative
ly brief one. and he was followed by Mr.
Low. who intimated that if the President
OF the United States were the real, -iefend-
ant in the case. he would have no doubt as
to its outcome. Mr.. Low explained that
the present proceeding is not the trial of
title to public office. for Mr.. Woods is in
that the Post Office Department officials
and all 9th Hrs be restrained from Interior
ing with his performance Of the duties of
ms ONCE But in the well-known case of
held that public office that of Justice of
peace. is u vested right.
Replying TO question asked him by JUS
tice Cox, Mr.. Low said he could find no
law specially providing for The appoint
ment OF Mr.. Woods. Assistant Attorney
General Boyd explained to the court that
MI Woods was appointed by the Post
master General
Civil Service Benefits.
Continuing, Mr.. Low submitted that from
the very establishment of the government
there had been desire on the part of the
people of the country to protect public Of
fees from the domination of politician,
and he dwelt at some length upon the benz
efcial results to the welfare of the gov
eminent from an intelligent, impartial
ard honest enforcement CT the civil sery-
ice law, rules and regulations He submit
ted that under the existing amendments to
tie rules and regulations, to extend which
there had been a generous rivalry between
resident Mckinley and his predecessor
the power of removal is limited and can
be invoked only by express authority Of
the chief executive. Mr. Woods, said Mr..
Low. contends that he was removed with
out cause really for political reasons, and
he commended that about to be deprived of
his office, Mr.. Woods is entitled to the re-
lief he seeks in court of equity
In that connection Mr.. Low again In
sisted that court of equity can interfere
in and - obar IF