The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-01-13
KENNICKELL OUT OF HIS JOB.
KEEPER OF LAUREL GROVE LOST
HIS OFFICIAL HEAD.

NOuncil convicted Htm on the
Charge of Discourtesy to the
Mayor by Vote of = TO 3-The
Charge of Neglect of Duty Quash-
ed, the Parties bringing 1t Hnv-
ing Failed to Comply with the
Ordfnance-Mr. kennicI>eI Dis
claimed Any Intentional Discount
exy to the Mayor and Denied Ger
tain Statements Accredited to
Him-CIiHord {. mn slated for the
Place.
Keeper J. V. Kennicken Of Laurel Grove
Cemetery was dismissed from office by the
City Council last night on the charge Of
discourtesy 90 the Mayor. The vote was
five to three
This action was taken by Council after
somewhat tedious, but uninterestinG
hearing. Mr.. Kennickers attorney, G..
w. Beckett, Esq. put up an able fight for
his client. and succeeded in having the
first charge of neglect Of duty, preferred
by C. W. Barbce dismissed, by showing
that Mr.. Kenuicken had acted strictly
within the letter Of the ordnance, and
that ls could not be tried on this charge
because of the failure of the complainant
to observe the ordinance.
This charge having been disposed of,
that of discourtesy to the Mayor was
taken up The facts, as brought out by
the testimony, are practically the same as
has already been stated. Mr.. Kennickell
was under investigation by the Mayor on
the first charge of neglect Of duty He
was netted at what he considered the in
justice of the charge and also because of
the attempt of a witness. who was per
sonaliy objectionable TO him to drag The
name of a female relative of Mr.. Kennck-
ell into the affair lie did not understand
that the Mayor had the right to inVest-
gate charges of this kind privately. and
demanded a public hearing, refusing 10
answer certain question put to him by the
Mayor, which he considered as relating to
his private affairs.
1t was stated by Mayor Myers and his
secretary, Mr. Gamble, that MIR. Kennick-
ell, when told by the Mayor TO appear the
following day for a continuance of the
hearing, when other witnesses would be
summoned declared that IL was unneces-
sary to summon the witnesses, as he
would NOT appear except at a public hear
ing This Mr. Kennickell denied, stating
that ne had no recollection of such state
ment by the Mayor or of having made
any such reply.
There was a large crowd at the hearing,
the majority evidently being partisans of
the administration and opposed to Mr..
Kennickel Among the witnesses who
had been summoned were Undertakers
Fox, Henderson and Dixon. Chairman Daft
fin and Commissioner Maclean of the Park
and Tree Commission were also on hand.
None of these were called upon to testify,
however. as their testimony was evidently
expected to bear upon the charge of neg
lect of duty.
1t seemed at first that Council would
not be able to get a quorum. and several
aldermen were telephoned for. About
O'Clock the session began with the fol-
lowing members of the board in attend
ance: Mayor Myers, Aldermen Dixon
Thomas, Mills Doyle, Bacon, farrell and
Wells. Aldermen Graham and Schwarz
came in little later Besides City At
torney S. r. Adams, Mr.. G. w. Beckett
was present, representing Mr.. Kennicken.
and Mr.. I. l.. Hill, representing Mr. Bar
bee
Mr.. Beckett said that his client had
never received a formal copy of the
charges against him and asked for a state-
ment of the charges. Mayor Myers made
statement of the circumstances leading
up to the trial
The charge of neglect of duty was first
taken up Mr.. Beckett made the point that
Council was not the proper body TO uy
the charges and that they should have
been preferred to the Park and'Tree Com
mission which was given supervision OF
the cemetery by the act of 1886 Mr..
Adams held that as Council elects the
keeper of the cemetery it had jurisdiction
under the general provision Of the city
code for the trial of city officers by Coun-
ell.
Mr.. Beckett then brought sections SAG
and S4S of the city code referring to the
duties of keeper of the cemetery o bear
and said that the charge as presented did
not require Mr.. Kennickell to make any
defense, as the ordinance requires written
notice to be given by anyone desiring
grave dug, giving the location of lot, and
other information, and further requires
the payment of fees in advance. Notice in
writing had not been given nor had the
fees been paid. Mr.. Beckett said
Mayor Myers replied that the prevailing
custom was entirely different, written no
tice being rarely given, and 1t being known
that verbal notices were commonly accept
ed. Mr. Beckett then called attention TO
the fact that the authority to try The
Keeper for failure TO open a grave after
having been duly notified. is vested in The
Mayor and not in Council and the penal
~ provided is a fine not TO exceed $50
This was something of a poser 10 the
Mayor and Council and City Attorney
Adams was requested TO look into the mat
ter. Mr. Adams took several minutes in
which TO examine the ordinances. al the
end OF which time he announced that MIR.
Becketfs point had be n well taken. The
ordinance quoted by Mr. Beckett.
he said, referred 10 a particular matter
and requires written notice to be given
the cemetery keeper. The act placing the
cemetery under the supervision Of the
Park and Tree Commission did not ropeai
the ordinances of the city. The general
provision of the code empowering Council
10 punish any officer for misconduct or
neglect of duty does not override special
law regulating a particular ofense. In
der this section Mr.. Adams held that no
case had been made out
This disposed Of the Barbee charges ana
the second charge Of discourtosv to the
Mayor was taken up. Mr. Adams opinion
being asked, he stated that it was The
Mayors prerogatiVe uuder both The gem
eral and special provisions OF the code TO
make preliminary iuVes ig,tions Whcr.
charges had beeu preferred against an
officer Of the city. e. while such an in