The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-01-15
cITY OR COUNTY OFFICERS
,,.u ARE THE OFFICERS OF THE
WIN " CITY COURT:

r,e question bei"S -
'"' FaIligant in the superior
1"'- mon II May Hinge the Ten
'o"i ,be Offices of the Clerk
an s.ri9 of the City Court.
"'a .tb, Arguments by Lawyers
and Lawrence.
l..rj5s of argument in the quo
The ar,.eedings instituted by Messrs
WarL@', -',.,- and 7. j. sheftail against
) : .-a-ted clerk and sheriff of the
me ,',art. Alessrs. Waring russell IT,
C' Whelan, occupied the time OF
ai' ,or court yesterday from noon
the IN, o.lock. AT that hour Judge
u''' adjourned the hearing until TO-
.et moon at 4 O clock. There We're
n'' TN. n4r-ons present outside of those
Y''' ioter.sted. The hearing was CON
que ii an informal manner, Judge Fal-
''''e -.,,ins at the clerks desk.
l7e"' .ass.ion was taken up upon the pc
...,n of Mr.. Collins, directed against Mr.
rsau ring him to show cause why
nus ,,n,t surrender the Office of clerk
'' +s. cav court now held by him. to
.t,,onsr. Mr. Lawrence read the
'' of Mr.. Collins, in which the
,.t. fer his contest are set forth, be
,,inIy that The officers of the City
. are county and not city officers,
that the act under which the new in
t.-,,,s u,re elected is unconstitutional,
...,.. il includes subject matter in the
n
ing.
W. Adams representing Mr.. Russell as
,,torr.v. entered a general demurrer
:. the n4iuon. This placed the burden
,-.nfng the argument upon him, and
q.r.. him the conclusion Mr.. Ad-
,-gg.d the question a. length, TAX
g. M, every po.nt made by the contest
IN rbejr petitions, discussing II thor
+l,. ana citing numerous authorities
,9.foob,s 10 the case. At the conclusion
- liz argument, il was evident that he
VA made a very strong presentation of
hs side of the case, and that he was
str,1gly fortified in his position.
Mr. Adams first took up the claim of
The petitioners that the clerk and the
s5Arf of the City Court were county and
4 nal eftv officers, and that the city itself
ii ba1
& nv raa strong statement from Hon j. j.
NcDonough when Mayor of the city, in
81 bis annual report for 1898, when he de-
Il carej that the City Court was county
an5 not City Court and that there was
81 M reason why the city should bear any
il mart of the expenses of this court. 1t
= was claimed Mr.. Adams said, that the le
B cal opinion then submitted by Judge
81 NcDonough had estopped the city from
n claiming that the City Court officers were
s. civ officers. While he had the greatest
I respect for Mr.. McDonough, Mr. Adams
81 said ne hardly regarded him in the iignt
Il Of a great legal luminary The opinion,
IN fact was of no legal value and could
hardly be so regarded by the opposition.
i was merely Mr. McDonough's opinion
Of business matter, stated from the
standpoint of the business interests of the
city How it could affect the position of
Mr. Russell under the circumstances as
now presented he could not understand.
As 10 the claim that Council had ac-
knowolge1 that the City Court officers
We're rot city officers by it's action in not
electns a clerk and sheriff of the City
Court under the act of 1894 which chang
Cd The time of election of city officers from
October to January, Mr.. Adams said thar
this act had no special bearing upon the
case as il did not propose to deal with the
clerk and sheriff and they were not men
Toned in the act. The terms of the act 1894
he said, Were broad enough, however, to
have Included the clerk and sheriff but this
evidently was not intended.
The act Of 1898 is plain in its terms, Mr.
Adams said. Even if the clerk and sheriff
were in no substantial respect city officers
IL would not follow that the act was I'M
Constitutional, Being elective by Council
they come as much within the purv.ew of
tae act as the city treasurer or the city
marshal. Suppose the bin had omitted from
H the heading the word city" and instead
Oh all city officers" had provided for the
e.ection Of all officers now elective by the
cry would it then, he asked, have been
Gained that the act was unconstitutional
Mf Adams cited a number of decisions
from the Supreme Court Among them
was that upon the case of Butner versus
boNeulhet from the city of Macon, in
when MI Butner claimed that the law I'M
oei winch his office of chief of police was
a dooisned was unconstitutional, because
NE act creating the police commission, by
when his Office was abolished, made no
UghHon whatever of the abolition of the
Pn'e OF chief of police. The Supreme
N0uft Upheld the consttutionaHty of the
az, under which the office was abolished,
uNoaah the court stated in its decision
"at tAefe was no mention of this purpose
=. ne u'le OF the act and that it could not
i.0tNIF ne ned to come under the provis-
gas Included in the words land for other
4 purposes concluding the heading of the
ae!, Ine abolition of the office did not fan
a.0Psl+ "-hln any of the purposes of the
~, ana yet the court held the act 10 he
constitutional.
vhl. abroad case from Rome was cited
an act authorizing the municipal
Fl a. Po-9'oh TO subscribe a certain amount
a 'lus under certain conditions to a GER
r,l aI'Ioad named in the title of the act
, "9de to include afsinilar permission
t'seIIne for bonds of another and en-
cs. inherent railroad company. In this
fan NF court held that the words "snd
ot"7f purposes" We're sufficient notice
ro, .a5e rom Mcintosh county. where the
a 20 elee' municipalsoficers was vest
Tss .s heard of County Commissioners
he OF the act only referred to Civ
Tho county certain commissioners. but
e.. 10y Of the act gave the commission
for I rshl 20 elecb Municipal officers
que town of Darien.
lbs Ci. A45ms argued that the officers of
d c.y "S court were in fact in some respect
a Com, 0'''a'f rs The act creating the CIV
Gr ~ included in the charter of the
"NeA charter is nublisbe1 a.. -