Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1912-08-14
FORMAL VERDICT
FROM The JUDGE
IN RECALL CASE
Petitions Are Found to Be En-.
tirely insufficient and
Inadequate.
MANY. NAMES WORTHLESS
Evidence as Far as Gone Into Cuts Pc.
tons In f~o-Statemen Ac-
companies Finding.

The formal finding of Judge (. c.
Graves as applied to the petitions for
the recall OF Mayor H. NJ. Schriver and
commissioner Archie Hart was read
by the Judge this afternoon in the cir
cult court. 1t was in accordance with
the results of the abruptly ended
hearing and declared the petition in
sufficient and inadequate to procure
the recall of the city officials.
The recall cases are therefore Off
cially ended and from every indication
there will be no more attempts to ap-
ply the law for the heads of the de-
feated move are almost unanimous
ia their declaration that they will not
be identified with another
JUDGE MAKES STATEMENT.
Preceding the reading of the decree
as signed by the court, Judge Graves
read a lengthy statement reviewing
the case and explaining in detail the
procedure. The statement follows:
Before disposing of the merits of
this case l think it is due to the Of
fcers of this court and to the wit
.
have attended this hearing and to
every person who in good faith sign
ed these petitions, or either of them.
and to the attorneys who represented
the respective parties at this hearing,
to make a few general statements.
This is a new law, containing many
new and novel features and provisions.
II has never been before the courts
foI construction as TO its provisions
in this proceeding been blazing a new
path through an unknown wilderness.
UNJUST CRITICISM.
Some unjust criticism has been eX-
pressed by persons who did not know
what they were talking about because
the Hon. George w. Gamble presented
these petitions TO me, and because
thereafter at the request of some of
the parties interested in this proceed
ing he issued subpoenas for witnesses.
The law expressly provides that when
a petition for recall is filed with the
clark OF the circuit court together with
the objections thereto, il is the duty
o. that clerk TO Immediately upon the
filing of the same with him forthwith
present the same to the Judge of that
court or some one of the judges of that
court. II is further provided that any
officer who shall willfully
OF through culpable negligence fail to
comply with any of the prov ms OF
this section AZ shall be sub. to a
fine of not more than $500 G mpris'
onment in the county Jail nc xceed
ing six months, or both such lie and
Imprisonment and may be moved
from Office
FORCED UPON GRAN
Upon the presentation of is peti
ton to Mr.. Gamble, | am ised he
consulted with the late Jud Gest &c
ascertain if he would be "a to con
duct the hearing required der the
law. and having ascertain that he
would not and knowing i Judge
Ramsay was out of the 2 on hi:
vacation and would not ii y return
until near the middle Of ,ptember
there was but one thing could do
and that was 10 present il me. who
vas the only one of the ges of the
court of which he was th clerk tina
was able to attend TO isiness Il
whom he could present II he hal
waited In the hope OF Jut Costs re
covery or for the return o Judge Ram
say he would undoubted have beer
liable under the section owe quoted
for a willful neglect o d NANTES
duty.
HAD TO ISSUE hrs.
AS to the issuance of lbpoenas b,
him. These were issuei Ipon the re
, Quest OF parties inu ,sted. Th'
statute in express tel gives th'
court or the judge or tn Judges there
Of in vacation authorit and jurisdiC
ton 10 determine in a hnmary man
rer the sufficiency of D. petition
was construed by IN attorneys a
least for the officers, I'd rightly sc
think, that that Cla' gave to tn
Judge hearing the ntroversy TIL
right TO command tn attendance o
witnesses and eXamiT them on oatl
as 70 the merits Of contention
court is the usual me cd Of securing
the attendance OF wi ssses. He va
IA doubt as TO the ] lpriety OF issu
ing them, but upon g attention be
Jig called TO the prov ons above quot
60 as 20 the penalti that might b
imposed for a willfu' negligent fai
IRE TO perform a d. :. he very prop
erly determined TO d did issue N
same as requested. Ipon the theor
that when in doubt ie should Away
. resolve that doubt / favor OF the SAT
course OF action undoubtedly di
right and as ! would AVE directed hir
to do il had bes called into cor
sultation with hi n that subject
QUESTION } DECIDE.
! There is one re thing ! desir
J to speak of befoT stating what tn
evidence disclosed | am imforme
that some of the petitioners believ
that the object of is hearing is to d.
] termine whether Mayor Schriyer an
Commissioner Hart by reason Of tn
manner IN which they have respecr
. lively conducted their Offices deserve Z
be recalled. That is mistake Tn
merits of the controversy betwee
? these officers and those who seek thei
r recall is in no way involved in thi
+ hearing. There is no specific charg
z made in the petitions for a reca