The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-12-21
SCOTT D|SM|SSES
CONTEMPT RULE
ACTION OF STATE PRISON BOARD
IN oUsr1N0 SURGEON HELD
TO BE VALID.
BUT MUST PAY SALARY
COURT SUGGESTS THAT LEGISLA-
TURE MUST PASS ON CUES
TONS INVOLVED IN THE
SECOND REMOVAL.

Members Of the State Prison Board
acvted within legal bounds when 1t
removed DIR. Charles v. Darlington
a. prisoner surgeon December 9.
So ruled Judge Scott in the City Cir
cult Court yesterday after hearing ex-
tended argument in the matter. AT
the same time, he ordered that the
contempt rule against the board be
dismissed.
In tho case Of the mandamus
against State Auditor Donohoe how
ever, the court held that the auditor
would have to pay DIR. Darlington
salary as prison surgeon from October
81 to December Q. these being the
dates of the surgeons first and sec
Iond removal respectively.
May Settle Row.
Meanwhile, 1t may be noted that
Or. w. T. Openheimer. prison surgeon
pro tenn. has already drawn salary UP
to December j, thus rendering the
situation all the more complicated.
though 1t would seem that the courts
ruling that the board members were
not in contempt of its order when they
time, is a long step In the direction
OF settling the controversy that has
monopolized much OF the limelight In
these parts for the last three months
There In strong likelihood. however,
that the entire matter will yet be
aired In the higher courts, for counsel
on both sides indicated yesterday that
neither would yield a point, If it were
possible to do otherwise.
Defines Authority.
In handing down his opinion. Judge
Scott held that the board OF direc-
tors OF the State prison. bein~ a body
appointed by the Legislature and en-
powered with judicial rerogatives. was
beyond the pale of his Jurisdiction 50
far as Its official acts were concerned:
and therefore the ocurt could not re-
view any discretionary act of the
board of directors or call the discra-
ton OF that body into question.
Does Board Win?
This ruling Is regarded as dis
tinct victory for the penitentiary d.
Is held liable for the salary which
DR. Carrington lost an a result OF
hts first removal. On this occasion.
it will be recalled. pr Darlington
was ousted without proper cause or
hearing according to tho courts rul-
| Ing several weeks ago On the Sec
ond occasion he Was given a hearing.
but was fired" In quick order.
The mandamus against the auditor
will become operative In thirty dayA
having been suspended for that period
OF time after the court rendered Its
! opinion.
Tip to a late hour yesterday after
noon. no formal order in connection
vsft hn he rys. "
the record books OF the court.
Discusses Case.
In passing on the case. Judge Scott
said: The question La one involving
the power OF the board OF directors
of the penitentiary. That board,
under the constitution and laws, Is
given certain powers. The power OF
appointment OF surgeon Is unuues-
| tionahly ia Il and the Pe~e#-ef- re-
moval for causes Set out is equally
as plain.
So, too. the court had the right
to issue the mAndamas ordering the
board to ,reinstate when 1t removed
without giving due notice The acts
of the board then were void. But
the same principles did not apply to
| tho removal of December 3. when
| notice had been given.
| Courts Power Limited.
! I'm Its answers to the rule for con-
| tempt. the board says It has given
what 1t thinks wax d fair trial. Now.
/ am asked to say that there never
WAS any charge specified and never
| Was any hearing given. I am asked
/ to reverse those proceedings and to
lput my opinion In the place of the
| boards when the Legislature has
sa!d that the board has power to re-
move for those causes. and that they
| must exercise discretion.
| lit is for the Legislature. II II sees
| MT to investigate. to put the blame
where II lies, but court cannot pass
upon anything but a legal question.
| I think this court Is without Juris-
diction to compel the board to exer-
! else the discretion given under law"