The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-02-07
FOSTER CASE IS
FULLY ARGUED.
CONTINUED From First Page.)

his contention that the State has the
right to institute n suit whore .ts in
terests are involved or wherein me
rights and interests of the people of
the State are directly concerned. He
argued that the Constitution spccifi-
cally and expressly gave to the General
Board exclusive jurisdiction in cases
involving the removal or appointment
of officers, and that no provision was
made for appeal therefrom, and that
even II q writ of certiorari could ..e
in this case, it would be on the cond-
ton that the said board had exceeded
it's legal authority.
The purpose of the Constitution was to
confer part of the executive authority
of the State upon the General Hospital
Board. The power to review the action
of this board under this authority is given
to no other department Of the State gov
crnment Officers who have accepted Of
flee under the Constitution which con-
fers this power are required by their
oaths to support and maintain this Con-
stitution.
The power to remove for cause is dis
cretionary and of a judicial nature. The
courts cannot reviw the acts of this
board, performed under authority eX-
pressly conferred upon them by the Con-
stituton. Mr.. Anderson quoted two de-
cisions bearing on the case, one nvo!v-
ing the right of a court to summarily
remove an election officer and another
very similar to this.
The attorney contended that the board
under its authority might have removed
without notice, but where cause was re-
Quired it was deemed best to give the
superintendent removed notice and u
hearing before final removal. The ac-
ton of the board was not subject to re-
view by certioraJi or otherwise, being per-
formed under ample constitutional au-
thorty.
Only Case intiVirginia:.
Addressing himself to the Invocation OF
the unusual writ Of certorari, the at
torney cited q case from the Wiscon-
sin cours, in which the right of a board
of supervisors to remove and OF a court
to review this action by writ Of certiora-
ri was passed upon, but asserted that
there We're few instances in which a
case had been brought up from County
to Circuit Court In this State by certiorari
proceedings, and cited a case from Fred
ericksburg as the only one ofEt..e kind
ON record in Virginia.
The writ of certiorari at common law Is
used in two classes of cases: First, to
remove Il case from an inferior to a
superior court Or to a court of concur
rent jurisdiction. as in a change Of venue;
and in manner analogous to writ
of error. In this State 1t Is used exclu-
/ sively after verdict and Judgment, and as
( writ of error, In three or four quoted
! cases the writ Of certiorari was re-
! fused. The attorney disposed Of the
I several cases cited from other States, In
all of which, he contended, the court
awarding the writ had original jurlsdic-
ton Where the writ Is In the nature
of writ of error, 1t cannot and will
rot be invoked until after final judgment
The Circuit Court had no Jurisdiction to
issue a writ of certioran in this case,
: wherein coordinate department Of the
government Is involved.
Such a proceeding would hamper til,
administration Of tho government ant
it's institution. It could only be in.
voked upon statement of facts show.
ing that the general board had ex.