The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1912-01-22
COMMISSIONER |KARD
NOT SUSPENDED
SUSPENSION CAN ONLY FOLLOW
INDICTMENT BY GRAND JURY
AND is THEN DISCRETIONARY.

The prayer OF the county attorney
for the suspension OF City Commis
siOner lizard from office during tn
pending OF the commissioners trial
on the charge of ueroUism, was pre-
sentel to judge Russell iE the dis
trict court room this morning. The
room was filled with spectators,
there were several Witnesses pres
ent, and besides an array OF legal
counsel on both sides.
Judge Russell held that before a
man can be suspended from office
an Indictment must be returned
against him by a grand jury, and
the ruling of the court was against
SUSPENSION from office. Immediately
following the decision, the cases of
City Commissioners NJ. Ikard, G.. p
Selvidse, W. X. Bumitt and T. c..
Bridsman, all of whom are charged
With the same Olfensc, were set for
trial ON ;no 18TH day Of FEBRUARY
The court stated that the defend
ants could require a jury if they
so desired and intimated that the
cases could be tried before the court.
Attorney ". f. Bowman appeared
Tor the prosecution and read the
petition Of the county attorney charg-
ns Mr. Hard with nepotism, and
asking for his suspension from OF
flee.
w. -. Potter for the defense Of
tered a demurrer to the petition.
The demurrer recitcd that the petition
die not state sufficient facts TO con
,titu'e a cause of action either in
law or in equity and that the cour-
is without jurisdiction. The court inn
mediately stated that if the demur-
rer was based upon lack of jurisdic-
ton of the court that he would over
rule it. Attorneys for the defense
Immediately stated that the court
had jurisdiction of the matter, but
that the method pursued by the
prosecutions was not proper.
Attorney Potter argued in defense
of the demurrer. He said the stat
utes provided for a fine and forfeit
ure OF office in case of conviction.
but that the prosecution was at
tempting 70 apply the punishment be
fore conviction was had.
Judge Russell said as he caught
The argument of the defense that its
contention was that suspension could
only follow Indictment by grand Jury
and that in that case suspension was
IN tn" discretion of the court and
also that removal from office could
only follow after conviction.
W. +. Bowman made the argument
'Cr The prosecution. His argument
vas that the general demurrer Of
fered was insufficient He read from
the statutes the law against nepot-
Ism. he claimed the statutes covering
this particular offense were taken
from the North Dakota laws. where
grand jury was required. but that
II Oklahoma where information could
be filed by the county attorney. the
county attorney mas the same pOwer
that is lodged in a grand Jury He
read the opinion in the Maben case
Whera he claimed It was held that
the court has the power to suspend
before trial. and after trial if has
the power to remove from office
The power to remove carries with It
the power 10 suspend, but the nOwer
to suspend must not be used arbi.
trarily but with Gscretion-anl
must he used only against the acts
of the official. His argument was
that the commissioner had access
to the books of the city and should
be suspended during the time his
case is pending in, the court
Attorney W. B. Johnson made a
brief argument for the defense. He .
said the petition charges that at one
time Commissioner Hard committed
tie oifense of nepCtism. it does not
allege that he is committing it now.
it states that he placed or caused
10 be- son on the police
force. for which his son received
few dollars, it is discretionarv with
he court whether he shall be Sis
oended or not The exgencies of the
occasion mighS demand suspension
mt in this case it does not. With
'Ir. Ikard. suspension means removal
or the reason that when he is ra-
ieTed o. his duties the commission
rs must appoint his successor and
he successor would hold until the