Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1916-07-07
Judge, Fulk Sets Aside Or der Removing Bledsoe
 from superintendency.
NONE OF CHARGES
 SUBSTANTIATED
The "Star Chambpr'' Tactics or Gov. CrnOr Hays MariOnettes Impress Unfav0rably Circuit Judge Who
 Reviews tie Case.

Little Rock, July G.--That the state board of control had completely failed to substantiate any of it's charges against pr. E. P. Bledsoe superintendent of the institution, was the finding Of .!ndsa Guy fulk in the Second division of the Pulaski circuit court in setting aside the action os the board removing pr. Bledsoe. Judge Fulk scored the loard, intimat- ing that the hearing by the board of the charges brought by the board was farce, and followed the de- cision with an order directing that the salary of the superintendent be paid to pr. Bledsoe rending an ap- peal, 60 days being allowed for the filing of a bill of exc ertions.
 Board and Hays Silent.
 Neither Governor Hays nor any member of the board of control will make any comment upon the decision All that any member of the board would say is that they have not stopped fighting vt, and it is inti, mated that the decision of the lower court will he tried in the supreme court on the ground that Judge Fuli had no jurisdiction. The supreme court. however, will adjourn next Monday for the summer recess. Just what step the hoard will take to pre- vent the decision of the lower court establishing the status quo until the supreme court can pass upon it. has not been made public. Several coursss are open," said a friend of the administration.
 Text of Decision.
 Judge Fulk's decision in full in the Bledsoe- Board of Control contro- versy follows:
 The first question that arises is that of jurisdiction.
 Will certiorari lie to review the ac- tion of the board of control?
 The act creating the board reads as follows:
 The board may at
 any time remove the secretary,
 or the superintendent, or stew;
 ard, of any of the institutions,
 for inattention, neglect, mis-
 conduct or inefficie ency in the
 discharge of his duties. or for
 any adequate cause: but in
 case of such removal. it shall
 state specifically and distinctly
 the grounds therefor"
 This board is required to employ the superintendent. On January |. 1916, it employ:d pr. Bledsoe and entered into written contract with him. It had no authority to discharge anyone except the superintendent and steward, but, wishing to make some changes in the staff ahd force of em- that Dr. Bledsoe remove them. aAd upon his refusal to do so preferred charges against him. These charges were specifically and distinctly stated as the act provides.
 Semblance of Hearing.
 It then went through a semblance of hearing. producing witnesses and introducing evidence and permit ting the superintendent to introduce such evidence as did not refute the charges. It then sat in deliberation of the charges and evidence and passed upon the sufficiency of the same and rendered its decision and order of removal. This constituted the proceedings, quasi-judicial one and subject to the writ of certoriari. The next question raised is that it is a suit against the state.
 The board relies unon the decision in the Pitcock case tn sustain this contention. The decision in the Pit cock case was based upon the pro- position that it incurred additional pecuniary liability unon the state. That question does not exist in the case at bar. This is not a suit against the state but merely a resort to the courts 10 prevent an unlawful expulsion from an office.
 Cannot Arbitrarily Remove.
 The court having jurisdiction, the next question is whether the board would have the right to discharge pr. Bledsoe.
 Under the act creating the board we find ample authority to discharge him. The written contra ct entered into with him would not prevent the board from removing him. It would have no authority to contract away the