Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1909-11-04
MLEND0N REMOVED IN AN ILLEGAL
WAY.

Judge Charlton, Of the Chatham Su-
perfor Court, has sustained the con-
tention of deposed Commissioner Nc
Tendon that his removal was illegal,
to the extent that he was deprived of
the Office of railway commissioner
without due process OF law. The leg
islature proceeded improperly in it's
consideration of the case, largely gov
erned in its steps by men eager to
crafty the desire of Gov. Smith for
legislative endorsement of his official
act in suspending McLendon. I'm
parchment proceedings, requiring a
two-thirds votes to sustain them, were
not instituted, and the farcical meth
DDS of the majority of the assembly,
apparently determined on at certain
caucus meetings at the former Gov
ernor's residence, when subjected to
the review of an impartial judicial
mind have been declared void. 1t is
highly probable that the Supreme
Court of Georgia will sustain the po-
sition taken by Judge Charlton in his
elaborate opinion and that Mr. McLen-
don will be reinstated by its final ac-
ton in his former position as one Of
the Railway Commission, although not
as chairman.
In his opinion in the case Judge
Charlton hoe fhfs IN COW.
If the official is recreant to his trust
in their organic law, the people have
named the method by which he shall
be removed.
The method employed was not that
of impeachment and was, therefore,
not that required by the laws of Geor-
gia. Bearing in mind the dignity and
Importance of this Office, the Act Of
1879 itself furnishes the most conclu-
siye evidence of the want of logic and
reasonableness.
If a Railroad Commissioner COM
mitted high crimes and misdemean-
ors, the House of Representative and
the Senate of Georgia would put
aside their legislative functions, and
the one become prosecutors and the
other judges. With al 1.-THE formality
of this exceptional proceeding, pre-
sided over by the Chief Justice of
Georgia, the recreant official would be
brought to the bar confronted with
the charges against him and be &C
corded his full opportunity for de-
Tense. But il he had not committed
high crimes and misdemeanorss but
had done some act which came short
of that category, the judicial features
disappear, suspension without notice
or hearing results the prosecutors by
majority vote have a voice in re-
moval and the judges join with the
prosecutors in removal, substituting
majority for a two-thirds vote.
The more inconsiderable the provo
cation the more unstable the tenure, Is
4 doctrine which scarcely recommends
itself to courts or voters. Yet the de-
iuction of such a doctrine from the
terms Of the act is logical. 1t is not
what is done under an act which
makes 1t Objectionable, but what may
be done in pursuance of it's terms.
The effect of the departure from the
method of impeachment is strikingly
in evidence. The governor, consider
ing that the exigencies of the public
o6TflC6 ISQulI0u u1lil " SuSP 6uQ luS
relator, and, finding upon the statute
book law which undertook to direct
him, followed its provisions, made the
suspension, and reported reasons to
the general assembly.
Under Impeachment proceedings the
senate could not have removed the re-
lator without a two-thirds vote. The
vote it actually gave was a bare ma
jority of three. and Of the eighteen
men who voted in the negative, seven
/ teen put themselves on record as en-
PERTAINING views on the unconstitu-
tionality of the act of 1879, which, if
persisted in, would have made the i'm
parchment of the relator impossible.
If l am right in my conclusions as
to the validity of the statute under
which the relator was removed from
Office, it would be idle to consider the
reasons given by the governor. If
am wrong, and the statute is valid,
then to criticise those reasons would
be an unwarrantable intrusion into