The Paducah sun. [volume] (Paducah, Ky.) 1898-1906, 1905-08-01
BOARD OF ALDERMEN
CANNOT TRY EVITTS
Failed to Specify Cause for
Which an Official May Be
Removed.

failed to name or mention any caus5
whatever, for which such official
might be removed.
If left to my own way of thinking
/ might be inclined to construe this
statute to mean that the board of al
dermen could remove Evitts from his
Office for any reason II might deem
sufficient, or which. in its judgment
and discretion, might render him un-
fit to further discharge the duties of
his ofliCe; for. according to the lette:
of said section the board seems to be
all powerful and may remove, for
any cause IL, in it's discretion, MAJ
deem sufficient. But the court of APP
peals of Kentucky, in the cases of
Todd. mayor of the city of Louisville,
W.. Dunlap, etc. 99th Kentucky, page
451 and In the case of Gibbs against
the board of aldermen of the city OF
Louisville, constituting a section of
the charter of city of the first class
almost. If not quite. in the Identical
language of the section In second
class cities which | am called on TO
construe, held that since the lsgisla.
ture had failed TO designate any
causes for which city official might
be removed, that the common Law
must prevail, and that the common
law supplied the defeat or failure OF
the legislature to designate causes
for which a city official could be re-
moved. and that the board of alder.
men OF said city had Jurisdiction only
TO remove for common law causes
towit: for misfeasance, or malfeas-
ance IN OFFICE, or that character
OF charges that render the officer UN.
FIT FOR THE POSITION, or, a.
was said In the case of Gibbs VS.. the
board of aldermen, above referred to
FOR SUCH CAUSES AS UNFIT
HIM FOR THE PLACE"
The language quoted above is very
broad and comprehensive, and
should be inclined to hold that it ia
broad enough to mean any cause
which the board of aldermen thought
sufficient TO unfit the official for his
place, or position, but the court OF
appeals has all along the line restrict
I'd causes for removal to the abuse o.
misuse of the duties of the Office and
the causes for which an official can
be removed from office. MUST BE
ACTS OF THE OFFICIAL IN RELA-
TION TO THE CONDUCT OF HIS
OFFICE. and not to acts that may be
merely personal to himself, or affect
ing his. private life, or his character
as a citizen.
In the case of the wealth
VS. Barry, decided in 1908, in the car
ly stages of the law in Kentucky. II
was held by the court of appeals in
constituting a provision of our theL
constitution, which provided for the
removal of circuit clerks by the court
of appeals for breach of good be.
havior," that said language could
only be applied to. and must be re.
stricted to misconduct in office, and
the court in that case used the fol.
lowing significant language: "To de
termine that this court could for ev,
cry misconduct in private life, com.
mitted by a clerk. remove him from
office, would be putting every clerI
in the arbitrary power of the court
aud might be exercised to the wors
purposes"
In much later case of the com
monwealth VS.. Williams decided by
the court of appeals, and reported in
18th Kentucky. constituting an act OF
the legislature TO the effect thai
drunkenness of certain named oflic
ials. including county judges willis
in the discharge of their official du.
ties, should be deemed misfeasanct
in Office, and fixing a penalty for a
violation of the statute at removal
from office. the court held said act t.
be unconstitutional and not enforcea.
BILE, for the reason that the leglsla
- - -