The Cairo bulletin., 1910-01-17
STRONG ARGUMENT.
ON BOTH SIZES IN CONTEST
OVER SHERIFF'S OFFICE
IN THIS COUNTY.
Judqe Duncan Will Decide Case First
Week in February--Validty of
Law lnvolved-Points
Presented.

4
| Judge Duncan has taken the case Of
Davis VS.. Nellis under advisement and
stated at the close of the arguments
Saturday night, that, as he would he
very busy holding court for a time,
he probably would not be able to rem
der decision till the first week in
| February.
| The case was fully presented by
the attorneys on both sides. their AT
guments holding the court from p. NJ,
+! till $50 p. N. without adjournment for
supper. The demurrer to the plea fled
| by LansdeR & Lansden. presented by
Attorney Leek and Judge Dewey set
up that the law under which the
governor acted in removing MI DAVIS
was Illegal and void. being in violation
of the states and federal constftE-
tions. Mr. Leek was followed by d, s.
Lansden for the defendant and Judsa
Dewey closed for Mr. Davis
It is alleged by Mr., Davis counsel
that the law sought to give to the
governor power which he could not
exercise under the constitution; that
the latter instrument indicated his
power of removal and this could not
be added to or taken from by the
LEGISLATURE. That the law was special
Legislation. in that it sought to give
. hn ya
only one of six or eight officers in the
same class. That the law embraced
three kinds of proceedings, two of
which were not indicated in the title
which referred only to suppressing
mobs, whereas it gave the governor
power TO remove the sheriff and also
created liability against the COM
munity where mob violence was per-
petrated. neither of which latter were
german to the title. 1t is alleged al
so that the lew was unconstitutional,
in that it REQUIRED the sheriff to ap-
ply for reinstatement within ten days
after the lynching. but permitted the
governor to delay prociaiming the Of
fec vacant Indefinitely, with the re-
suit that If the governor delayed the
proclamation till after the ten days
had expired the sheriff would have
no recourse.
Counsel for Mr. Nelis contonded
that the law was constitutional that
the constitutional provision declaring
that the governor should have the
right to remove ill his own APP
pointees. was intended to prevent the
Legislature from taking this power
from him. and did not mean that the
legislature could not give him further
power of removal ii ii should choose
to do so The law was not special
legislation of the sort prohibited by
| the constitution for il applied to all
sheriffs of the state, those officers be-
| ing held in class by themselves, as
the chief officers in the counties, re.
sponsible above all others for the
safety OF prisoners charged with cap
fital crimes. The contention that the
| law should apply to all officers au-
thorlzed TO MAKE arrests was not ten
abIe. 10 the allegation that the law
was unconstitutional because the
tlt'e did not embrace aH the pro
visions, counsel for Dir. Nellis replied
that the provisions were within the
meaning OF the title which Indicated
the purpose to be TO suppress mohs.
Gases were cited IN which the SUI
pfeme court had upheld legislative
acts in which similar defects were al.