The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1912-05-08
BANK EXAMINER CASE.
CtNSTITCTIONALQ QUESTIONS DIS.
CCSSED YESTERDAY.
To Tcs; Right of Governor VII IN
Fewer to Remove an Official j.
Not Given.

NOt Given.
Colcmiia. May 4.-Several constitu-
tional question bearing on the right
of the governor Of the State to remove
an oiilcial when the act creating the
| office does not provide specifically for
removal were argued yesterday in the
supreme court when the proceedings
brought by Attorney General Lyon to
oust b. j. Rhame as State bank ex-
aminer were called up for hearing.
Mr.. Rhame was represented by w. F..
Stevenson Of Cheraw, and II. w. Fraser
Of Georgetown, who was appointed by
| the governor to take the place of
State bank examiner. represented by
B. l.. Abney and Geo r. Rembert
of Columbia.
Attorneys in the case filed their
written arguments. In the oral argu-
| ment there were many interesting
| points discussed. The argument de-
veloped into constitutional sparring
| match between Mr.. Stevenson and
Mr.. Abney, which was brought about
by the questions Of Associate Justice
Woods.
1t is expected that a decision in
the matter will be given at an early
! date. Mr.. Rhame refused to give up
L nf tot hop
when proclamation ordering his dis
missal was issued by the governor.
| In his argument for Mr.. Rhame
Mr.. Stevenson pointed out that the
governor issued a proclamation pur-
porting to dismiss Mr.. Rhame as bank
examiner because he had failed to
have the statements required by law
to be published according to law by
the Lexington Savings bank His
return shows that such were publish
ed" said Mr.. Stevenson.
Mr.. Stevenson contended that un-
der the law the governor had no right
to dismiss Mr.. Rhame. "The statute"
said Mr.. Stevenson. fixes his term
for four years. 1t gives no power Of
removal to the governor" 1t was
pointed out that the act repeals all
former acts relating to the examiners
Office, one of which gave the power
Of removal.
Other points made in the argument
were. that the act creates an execu-
tive Office and that this sweeps away
the right Of the governor to interfere
In this case because the term "execu-
tive officer" covers expressly this Of
ficer and the mode Of trial and re-
moval Is prescribed in the cOnstitu-
tion. that the governor recognized
Mr.. Rhame as judicial officer when
he called upon him for information,
that an executive officer may be
created either by the constitution or
the statute, that where the statute
prescribes one mode of removal that
a'cne can he followed. that the only
constitutional provision invoked says
it may be done IN such manner "as
may be provided by law" that under
the present case there can be no re-
moval except in pursuance Of legis-
latlve procedure or enactment. The
reasons given for denying the power
ot the governor to remove the bank
examiner We're, that he is an execu-
| tive officer and his removal is provided
for In the constitution. that if that il
not correct and there is any statute
providing for his removal in the code
and the power is not lodged in the
governor but by an action Of the at
torney general in the court. Mr.
Stevenson stated that granting the
bank examiner may be removed by
| only after hearing.
Il. l.. Abney. appearing for Mr..
! Fraser. contended that the supreme
| court can not go behind the grounds
| assigned by the governor "because
they are reasonable and determine
| for themsclevs whether they are suf-
fcient or not" 1T was further sub
mitted" that the statute comforting the
| power of appointment upon the gov-
error. and not containing any re-
strIctions or limitations upon the
power Of removal. which is incident