The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-02-07

subject to review by the courts, de-
clarng that the efficient and orderly
administration Of the institution de-
manded it. The only ground on which
the writ is asked is that the pctluon-
or could not secure n fair and Impair
tinl trial He argued that the fact
that the board acted upon the record
secured by the Legislative committee,
did not invalldate that action, and was
similar to the procedure In the
appellate courts, which decided cases
on the record in tho trial court. !,
Question OF Jurisdiction.
Mr. Anderson addressed himself to
the second phase Of the case He con-
liamsburE was Without jurisdiction to
hear and entertain the Injunction suit
to restrain o. G. Brunk, l.. w. Lane.
Jr., and the three members of the local
board who were enioined by Its order.
He commended that officials have no per-
sonal interest in the question as a
property right, and that the defendants
in this bill haye none. second, that II
the jurisdiction existed, 1t was vested
in the Circuit Court of the city OF Rich
mond. The attorney argued that a
suit against an officer of the State was
a suit against the State. and that It
could not be enjoined. In support OF
his second contention, Mr.. Anderson
quoted the statute comforting exclu-
sive jurisdiction In certain cases on the
Circuit Court Of Richmond. fisS
Tho williamsburg injunction. he de-
clared, was an effort to suspend a de-
cree Of the Circuit Court of tho city Of
Richmond in favor Of the Common
wealth.
Great and Serious Issue II
Jeffries for the respondent. He, de-
clarcd that If the details OF this case
could be rehearsed before the court
they would shock its conscience. The
very able argument Of the opposing
counsel, he contended, showed con-
clusively that action of his client and
of his colleague was notsa mere.qu4oDle,
designed to retain DR.. Foster in his
office, but was great and serious issue.
The speaker then elaborated the argu-
ments set forth succinctly yesterday in
the analysis Of answer filed with
theScourt. The proceeding, he character
lied as a petition for a writ Of proh-
bition. first to the writ of certiorari and
then to the Injunction. He stated the
four grounds on which he contended the
writsof certiorarl would lie just as they
were stated ins the printed answer, and
considered each exhaustively, citing many
ol'AiiiOiS " NOultS " bOSldIltt HIS COUten-
ton. He preceded his argument, as Mr..
Anderson had done. by a summary Of
the facts in this remarkable legal COM
plication and the indicents leading up
to it.
After a legislative committee had made
an exhaustive Inquiry and had fully
vindicated Dr.. Foster. the General Hos
pital Board had delegated to sub
committee of three authority to examine
tab 1,,vt 1osyi oil
mittee; they had divided It Into three
/ parts each taking O part, and had then
recommended DR.. Fosters dismissal to
the full board, which without having read
the evidence or given notice or oppor-
tunity to answer and without even filing
charges and specifications, had summarily
removed DR.. Foster.
Later the board had acknowledged Its
error and had filed charges and cited DR.
Foster to answer, but he argued that it,
judgment was predetermined, and this
alleged hearing was nothing more thar
a formal compliance with law before
carrying out its arranged program h
! cited the fact that DR.. Brunk had beer
selected as superintendent before the
hearing had been completed. Continu.
Ing, Mr.. Jeffres reviewed the legal ram.
lfcatons and complications Incident Il
DR.. Fosters effort to defend his charac.
LII tiIIu MS TlSntS. aie.a5. +
A Pointed Question.
| Mr.. Jeffrics was arguing that tho co,,7
should refcuse the petition for a writ O.
prohibition when Julge Keith interrupted
him with the important and crucial qucs
ton: Suppose the court refuses the VIII
Of prohibition. what will rcsult?"
The question was unexpected, ant
somewhat nonplussed Mr.. Jcffrles. bu
| he replied that the case will como Ii,
for review upon the writ of certiorari
II the board cannot remove, this cour
cannot say that you shall remove, be
cause there is no other tribunal befor'
which it can DO brought. This colir
can do complete Justice or send tn
case back for the record.
Taking a fresh hold and rcsumn,
his argument, Mr.. Jeffries contcndc,
that If the board removes DR.. Noste
in full compliance with tho Constltu
ton, then this court has no authort.
TO review 1t. but IL he was removed Il
defiance of tho Limitations of tn
Constitution then the case Is review
liable here, II the board sitting In
Judicial capacity Is not qualified to slt
surely there Is a. review OF their ACTOR
The speaker then specified what he re
garded as acts and conditions dlsqualify
Ing the board or certain members fror
sitting, declaring that they had testhe
az witnesses and HtraightWay ascende
the bench and passed judgment upo
the man against whom they had testified
lie contendcd that this board was sue
an inferior tribunal as to make It's act
rcyiewable by the Appellate Court, an
quoted authorities In support OF this con
tent!on. Continuing. he discussed briof
the question OF what constitutes an I'm
partial trial; whether tho writ 9
cor,lorar! can Issue before final 1udl
mcnt, and whether. If theecourt has dit
| qualified itself to sit. 1t lacks 1nrisdlt
ton to BIT In Judgment, contendlng tha
II had not jurisdiction OF tho case.