The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1910-05-08
JUDGE RUSSELL DO NOT INTER.
ssRe VITA REMOVAL OF EN-
GiNEER.
OFFICER REMOVED IMMEDIATELY
People Are Incline. 70 Appeal % 'ne
Courts Of Equity Too Frequently
and Too Much Power Is lodges m
the Courts. said the Court.

Following tie argument 90: cts At
torney Moore Friday afternoon 100 dis.
t-i., court Judge salWei % Russell
dismissed the petition %: ;ae c.t, en-
-.necr in which tha. ofi.cia. sought
,o restrain tae board o. commission
en-. from removing Sim from OFF,
s. Walker gave notice q, once
af appeal and says be- vill take the
ca.e 90 the highest tribunal Boo the
state Just What viii be bis next
move O.. not known. He could have
s-o-be- day in court by iusttuting
QUO Warranto proceedings but the
.ommissionrr. Boo order 90 make such
p-oceedingS possible. would have tu
a1r.oini a successor 10 the engineer.
The board feels that there are suiii-
ciert people in the rgineer', office
uos GO care FOR the business Of the
city and will al least, for a time. DO
without a city engineer The charter
gives the board right 10 proceed as
iong a. 10 b. practicable without an
engineer and that amount OF time.
-hich j. practicable. might De- con
strned by the courts 10 mean a day,
week or an entire term Of the %.
fcials elected
Following the decision OF the court
the commissioners met in called ses-
sion The engineer was sent for and
asked for statement of his side OF
the case. Mr.. owens. who was re-
Gently appointed member OF the
upon the issues concerning the engi
neer. but that official declired "a
make any statements. Mayor Cotnei
certified under oath and Mr1 owen
asked him number OF questions.
Upon the introduction OF rcsolu
tion removing the engineer IL was
passed by unanimous vote of the
board
Mr. Dawson was not present a, The
injecting.
Judge Russell. in passing upon tn,
application for a restraining order
said:
~ | understand this complaint. q
hill. 1t does not complain OF the nc
ton OF the Mayor. acting in his 60
pacity as mayor alone. but II is
complaint directed against the Boar
uf Commissioners. he being constit
cent part thereof. of course. An,
what the board has done. agains
which the complaint IS lodged. Is sc
forth in Exhibit G and Exhibit u. ~
tached to the complaint, and II 4
against the intention of the board q
commissioners. rs expressed in thos
two resolutions. that the equity powe
of the court is invoked
f'WeH gentlemen. In my view q
This case. | believe that the plaintiff
has rcsorted TO the wrong remedy. a
there is no principle So well settle
~ the law ~ that injunction vii
not lie. of courts of equity interfcr
10y Injunction. t0 determine question
concerning the appointment of publ
officers. OF their title 20 the office. an
regard this proccc ling us one G
effect that directly concerns tho tit'
60 the office OF city engineer 20
eventually the whole proceeding %
the part OF the bn,rd twin resoly
itself into q question of title 20 IN
office OF the present city engineer
in this, that they feel that they hay
the power 20 dismiss him. or dispo
sess him of II But so far as the cas-
lis now before ne. the board has mer
ly requested his resignation
The city of Arlmorc elected
Hoard OF commissioners. upon Who's
shoulders. and upon whose iutcgri,
and fidelity 20 duty. fhe duty of a.
mlnlstering the affairs Of the city a.
wolves
I don't think that court ot equi,
should stretch l.s powers and seek (
hamper men in whom rs lodged su,
re<porSiblc duties, In the discharp
Of what they conceive 10 be the
duty ! don't think II Is the pr
vince OF q court of equity to hedG
them about or hamper them with u
fear that a court will be run TO {
every preteXt 20 er Join them in the
actions or in their contemplated a
tions. II that fear permeatcs an I
dependent boiy-an Independent go
ernme0t as they are 1t prevents the
in doing those things that their du
imposes upon them 30 do and tn
the people who have confided In the