Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1918-02-05

The appended communication was
on Friday read in the house Of rep
rescntatives from Claude N. Sapp, as
sistant attorney general, relative 10
the state ga ne warden case, now in
the eastern district federal court.
The statement was in response to the
report Of Wade Hampton Gibbes. chief
game warden. The statement was as
follows:
| Gentlemen: My attention has been
called to the following statements con-
tanned in the preliminary report 20
your honorable body Of the Hon. Wade
Hampton Gibbes. acting chief game
warden:
| when proceedings were taken to
test my Ntle the attorney general
twice sent me word that he never
would have instituted them except for
ieral.
MY conception of the matter was
that the attorney general would insist
OIL defending the title OF n state Of
ficer whom the governor had commits
stoned and whose bond he had himself
approved.
The assistant attorney general has
conducted the proceedings. and If he
had joined my attorneys in their sim
cere efforts to reach n determination
OF the case upon its merits the mat
ter would have been already decided
by the courts"
The opinion Of Mr. Gibbes in regard
to this matter is Of no concern to me,
but. in view Of the fact that these
statements are contained in an official
report to the general assembly and
ther reason that through an over
sight this case was not reported in
our annual report to the general as
sembly. | feel that the record in the
matter should be given for your con-
sideratiOn.
When Mr.. Gibbes was last appointed
by the governor. a protest, am in
formed. was filed with the governor
and the comptroller general by the
president of the Audubon Society
stating that Mr.. Gibbes had not re-
ceived the recommendation Of the said
society as required by law. Thereaf-
ter. on August 3. the Hon. Carlton
W. Sawyer, comptroller general, d.
rected letter to the attorney general
| in which, among other things. the fol-
lowing statement and request was
made:
THE bond OF the chief game warden.
which was approved by you, Is for the
amount of only $4,000, and before
issuing any further warrants, think
the state should be protected by Il
decision from the courts on the ques-
ton rs to whether or not Mr.. Gibbes
was recommended for the appointment
by the Audubon Society. and whether
or not. under the existing circum-
stances. his appointment Is legal.
Therefore. acting upon your sugges-
ton that the proper place to settle
this question is in the courts. l re-
quest that you present the facts to
circuit judge, az contemplated by
Section 4G6 OF the Code Of Civil Proce-
dure. and that if he thinks this ques-
tion OF fact should be settled In an
action in the nature Of quo warranto
before the states funds are further
disbN bed on order OF Mr.. Gibbes as
chief .,rame warden. then I ask that
YOU OIL Jain leave and bring the action
contemplated by the code to deter
mine the question whether or not Mr..
Gibbes is legally entitled to the OF
fee OF chief game warden, and
whether or not orders drawn by him
as such officer should be recognized
by me in issuing warrants for the dis
bursement of the public funds"
The fact that the attorney general
approved the official bond of Mr.
Gibbes is no evidence of title to office.
As a matter OF fact, two other bonds
had been approved by the attorney
general for Mr.. Gibbes during the
same year and the court determined
that MIR. Gibbes was not the legally
constituted chief game warden. Tne
approval of the official bond by the
lattorney general OF any officer is moth
ling more than a statement that the
bond in is proper legal form. AS stat
ed by Mr.. Gibbes. in his report. the at
torney general had no personal desire
to bring this action and would not
have brought the same except upon the
request of the comptroller general and
az contemplated in section 466 OF VOL
ume OF the code.
| Thereafter, was directed by the
attorney general to take charge OF the
proceedings, which | did, and imme-
diately secured an order from the
Hon. Eugene Il. Gary, chief justice,
then at Abbeville, permitting the case
TO be brought in the original jurisdic-
ltion of the supreme court in order that
| II might be speedily litigated. After
the granting of this order by Justice
Gary, the other members OF the court
overruled the chief justice and denied
the original Jurisdiction Of the court
for this litigation. then started a
proceeding de movo. in the court OF
common pleas for Lexington county
this being the most convenient court
in which the proceedings could be
brought and comply with the statute
in docketing the case IA days before
the court convened.
| Thereafter. during term time OF the
court Of common pleas for Richland
county. the defendants attorney made
u motion before his honor. Judge
Prince, to require the plaintin to
docket the cause and proceed to trial
in Richland, which order was granted
by Judge Prince. From this order an
appeal was taken by the state to the
supreme court on the ground that the
/ ,,.o, mt baipo anckated nv the