The times., 1897-09-12

the President. and meant only for the heads
of the departments, whom the President
might hold accountable as he saw fit
Mr.. Woods attorneys contended that the
case was clearly an equity case, and that
NJ could have no other redress than in the
equity court.
Mr.. Davis in opening the case for the
Government read several decisions froCl
various State courts, to the effect that
the right to public office cannot be de-
termined by court Of equity on an orig
inal bIll for an injunction, but that the
proper remedy is In court at law Mr..
Davis Their read an opinion of the Supreme
Court read by Judge Gray TO the effect
that q court of equity has no jurisdiction
over the appointment or removal OF d pub
lie officer, which he held was very clearly
and positively applicable to the present
case.
He contenGed that a public office is
not a property right and not subject to
contract, and that court of equity has
only Jurisdiction over cases involving prop
erty rights The district attorney also
charged that the civil service act and the
enforcing OF IT'S rules by the courts is an
invasion OF the powers OF the Executive;
that the act itself is an inyas ion by the
legislative branch, and that any attempt
by the judiciary to enforce it would
clearly be an invasion by the judiciary.
Mr.. Davis quoted parts OF the opinion
rendered by Justice Jackson, of West
Virginia, on the civil service law recently
and disseuted from them entirely.
Mr Low, for the plaintiff, began by say
ing that If the real defendant in the case
is the President of the United states "a
contention which Mr.. Davis had madel. he
had no fear that his client would not get
full relief under the civil service law. as
the Presidents ideas on the subject of
civil service reform were we'll known. He
asserted that a public office is unques-
tionably q property right, and that as Mr.
Woods is still an officer of the Govern
ment ana not removed as yet an action for
mandamus is impossible, and a suit in
equity the only possible relief.
Mr.. Stevens, also appearing for Mr..
Woods, quoted the dissenting opinions of
Justices Waite and Harlan from the
Supreme Court decision referred TO by
Districts Attorney Davis, In which these
judges contend that court of equity has
the power to interfere with the removal
cases In which it has he en- decided that u
court of equity may have jurisdiction in
such a ma tier.
Assistant Attorney General Boyd closed
for the Government with the broad con
tention that the heads of the executive
departments are simply the aids of the
President, and in the matter of making ap-
poin really make them for the Presi
dent, exercising the function of the Chief
Executive III his place.
III this view of the case the rules of
the civil service cited by Woods certainly
Were not laws ard could not have any
force a. laws. They simply made the heads
of the departments accountable to the
Chief Executive, WHO could discipline his
acts as he saw fit. Mr.. Poyd contended
that if the right of the courts TO interfere
in such matters and in the enforcing of
the civil service rules were recognized,
the actions possible would be endless and
absurd. The courts would be asked to in
terfere in favor OF disappointed applicants
for office and eligibles who believed them
selves improperly rated.
During their arguments both Mr.. Davis
and Mr.. Boyd professed the greatest friend
1iness for the civil service reform, Mr..
Davis even going far as to express his
belief that the rules even ought to be
more extended than at present.
The decision of Judge Cox is expected
early next W eek.