Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-11-24
SUPREME COURT RULES 40.
vERsELv IN REMOVAL CASE
or HARLAN MAYOR.
COURT NOT EXACTLY CERTAIN
BAuohN WAS INTOXICATED
Nevertheless He Acted % Drunken
Man and crsatsd pisturbanos on
the 9trsst-court Lays Down Inn
portant Rules 70 % Followed Undsr
cosson Removal Lave.
Special to rimes-Republican.

Special to Times-Republican.
Des Moines. Nov. 24.-Mayor William
Baughn will not get q new chance at
the court, but will be removed direct
from office by reason OF the supreme
court decision, the order being for
judgment of removal entered in the SUI
preme court or to be remanded for
that purpose.
The decision Of the court In this case
is of wide public interests as laying
down the law and rules to be observed
In removal cases, and pointing out
more clearly than ever before the
rights Of the elected officials and the
duties Of courts.
The court declares that the petition
for removal covers wide range but
the only debatable ground for removal
was the charge of having been intoxi-
Gated on the evening CT July %, 1912.
That he may have been eccentric in
manner" says the court, exaggerated
his own importance, especially as
mayor. and INDUCED In coarse LAM
guage. talked loud on the streets or
carried on factional controversies into
private intercourse with his neighbors.
however offensive. will not warrant
any interference with his incumbency.
Tastes differ and the characteristics
which are approved in one community
may be condemned in another or even
in the same community at differen.
times. It was for the electors Of Har-
Ian to say whether they wanted Bill
Baughn for mayor and II q majority DO
decided. 1t is not for the courts to de-
termine whether in electing him they
exercised good judgment"
But with all this he 10 entitled to
the office unless some statutory
ground is found for his removal: but
good character. which many of his
neighbors say he possesses. affords no
defense II guilty Of any Of the miscon-
duct denounced by state.
Acted Drunksnly.
The court reviewed the evidence
which it says was conflicting az to
toxicated July 20, the time on which
There was evidence Of the difficulty he
had in pronouncing words. that he did
not stand steadily and. weaved back
range Of subjects. He was also very
profane and abused many persons.
Summing up as to This incident the
court says:
"The record leaves no doubt but that
defendant whether drunk or sober, de-
meaned himself 40 person under the
influence Of liquor. for In the first place
he was looking for whisky. whether
really or merely ostensi5ly In order to
learn where 1t was kept. as he testified:
and secondly, he used profance lam
guage and INDUCED In opprobious
epithets and talked 10 loudly that he
could be heard far away. The decided
weight of evidence 10 to this effect. 1t
is scarcely conceivable that had he
been sober he would have continued
to argue when people had gathered
about him so as to obstruct the streets
and make Of himself little else than
public nuisance. Moreover on the fol-
lowing morning when conversing with
another an attorney came along and
inquired. Bill. I heard you were drunk
last night The defendant responded.
so I heard The attorney threatened.
I will give you forty-eight hours to re-
sign Of will go after YOU Defendant
resigned within two or three hours.
Evidently defendants answer was con-
strued as an admission and tho not
such 1t is to be taken against him. for
had the report been untrue he would
likely have denied 1t. Moreover his res
ignation under the circumstances was
in the nature of confession. Possibly
he thought to avoid trouble by step
ping down and out and as the council
reinstated him with practically no in
vestigation as to whether he was
drunk, there is room for the suspicion
that this course may have been pur-
sued with view Of avoiding proceed
ings for removal. This could have no
SUCH effect. We have read and re-
read the record In this case and are
unable to reach any other conclusion
than that defendant was intoxicated.
He did drink whisky; he did try
to get more, precisely, as drunken
man would; he employed the language
Of intoxication and those having best
opportunity to know pronounced him
intoxica ted
Other Court Decisions.
In the big list Of supreme court de-
cisions fled late Saturday was the fol-
lowing:
Conviction Of four teamsters for
rioting In the Transfers strike in Des
Moines, was affirmed. They are Or
VILE Devinney, M. B. Hampton. VIII
liam CASTOR and E. K. wilkins. They
expect to appeal to the parole board.
State vs.. Genour Beeson, Linn coun-
ty. granddaughter. conviction affirmed.
State We. ]. L. Huttenlocher, Polk
county, larceny by ENDORSEMENT, at
firmed.
State VS.. John n. Smith, conviction
1AA~A