Marietta daily leader. (Marietta, Ohio) 1895-1906, 1899-07-22
DISMISSED
Were the Charges Against Mayor
Richardson.

The meeting of the City Council to
investigate the charges preferred
against Mayor Richardson By Frank
b, Ranger, was called to order by
President Wood All members an
swered roll call except Eveleigh
The charges were read by the Clerk.
Attorney r. A. Underwood represent
ed the prosecution and attorney A. d.
hollett the defense.
The members of Council were sworn
by Squire N. e. Kidd, and the trial
commenced.
Mr.. Follett moved that the first
charge be dismissed on the ground
that 1t did not charge "mlsfeasance,
malfeasance, nonfeasance or miscon-
duct in office nor neglect of official
duty" He showed clearly that 1t was
nc. part of the official duty Of the May
or to take part in the parade on July
4th, therefore the charge of misfeas-
ance could not stand and the Council
had no authority under statute or Or
dinance to investigate.
Mr.. Underwood then admitted that
Mr.. Follett's stand was correct and
withdrew the charge
There was some discussion as to
whether attorneys motions could be
considered by the Council without
some member formally making the
motion. 1t was finally decided that
motions must be mads by members OF
the Council.
Lambert moved that Mr.. Follett's
motion to dismiss first charge be sus-
tanned. Motion was carried.
Mr.. Follett hen took up the first
part OF the second charge, which stat
ed that on the Sd and 4th days of July,
1899, the Mayor was intoxicated, etc.,
and was wholly unfit to perform the
duties of his Office. Follett claimed
that this was only repetition of the
first charge Further, that as the
Mayor did not attempt to perform Of
fetal duties he could not have been
guilty of misconduct in office. Under
wood differed, claiming that the fact
that the Mayor was intoxicated consti-
tuted misconduct in Office.
Lambert moved that Folletts mo-
on be sustained. Carried.
Follett asked that the second part of
charge two, relating to Mayors fight,
be dismissed on the grounds that dis
orderly conduct as a private citizen
did not constitute misconduct in office.
Underwood agreed and asked with
drawal without formal action of the
Council.
Mr.. Follett stated that the third
charge was the only one that merlted
any consideration whatever. He stat
ed that the Mayor was not required by
law to be in his Office at all times and
the mere fact that the was absent from
-,ls Office on July 5, 1899, and thai
prisoners did not have hearing, die
not make him guilty of nonfeasanct
in Office
Underwood held that under the con
stitution of the United States, prison
ers were entitled to speedy and public
trial; that it was the duty of the may,
or to give them such trial, and that he
was therefore guilty OF nonfeasance.
Follett replied by stating that the
statutes or ordinances defining May
or's duties did not state that the May
or should have any fixed time fol
holding police court and that he wa.
not compelled to give prisoners tria
under three days from time of arrest
therefore the charges would not stand
He asked that Council dismiss tht
charge and upon motion it was done.
Here Underwood stated that he haC
not seen the charges until $3.50 Frlda!
evening, and that he withdrew then
all owing to faulty construction, tech
nically.
Council adjourned without furthe
action and the Mayor is pronounced
not guilty OF the charges.