Perth Amboy evening news., 1921-01-19
ARGUMENTS To
Be ENDED TOOAI
Expect the Court Will IaI(
Case Under Amusement t.
Conference and QeCisio
0USTED BOARD FIGHTS
Decision Disposing Of Queo
ton of Governors Right {
Remove Board, Expected.
BUSTED BOARD FIGHTS

Special Correspondent.
TRENTON, Jan. 19.-Upon con
pletion of the argument here tod4
before the special session OF
court of errors sitting 10 hear
appeal of the ousted Public Ct<I[
Commissioners from the decision
the supreme court. UNFOLDING IL
governors action in removing the
it was anticipated that the coux
would take the case under advise
ment for conference and future do/
cision. The early expectation No
thai the argument of the counsel q
both sides would be completed TN
afternoon, although when the MAJ
ter was heard by the supreme cour[
it required two days to complete 81
A decision definitely disposinE d
the question as to h governor
authority to remove the board
expected 10 be handed down withI
the next two weeks. The importan<
of the case, it is expected. WII
prompt the error court to give
early ruling.
Many of the points arsued befor@
supreme court reiterated today Be
fore court of appeals Counsel A.
pearing for the ousted commin.
sioners, John w. Slocums Lon1
Branch, Andrew Gau1. Jr-, BerEc1
County, George +. Wright. Pafer
son. and Harry L. knight, Of Bu<1
ington. were Richard " Lindabur3
and Joshiah Stryker. for Messr4
Sloeum and Gaui. formed Judge NJ
/. Lewis, for Mr.. Wright. and
Claude Palmer for Mr.. Knight
Attorney General McCran ma
the argument in defense Of the
errors action of removal in pEx4
He was accompanied hy f
MCGEE and Joseph Laniga1s
his assistants.
Answering the contention or u.
lawyers for the ousted board "a
McCranfs first point made today
his argument was that the power
removal conferred upon the rofe1.
nor by the Public Utility statute
moi an exclusive judicial fHnction-
The question for consideration
is" said Mr.. McCran. has euI
fundamental law limited the pouel
of removal from Office. in case<
like the one at bar. to the process b
conviction after Impeachment u
the court provided for the purpose.I
He also contended thai the procc{
dure of removal is not in eonfiic|
with the bill of rights and declared
the power TO create has power q
remove" In the latter c~unnecffo1|
the attorney general declared thai
the removal of a board under TN
statute giving such authority is nd.
a proceeding directed priplariH
against the office, but a method ID
which the people acting through III
selected agency retake posscsz4Q1
of an Office.
ION the other hand" he contir{
ued. "a proceeding by Impeachment
- ~
holder of the office. The proceed
ings are penal in their nature and
Judgment against the iucumben1
may enter only after conviction be-
fore a judicial branch OF the govern4
ment, and the Judgment Consequent
upon conviction may reSuit HoZ
merely in depriNing the accusedNoI
the right to continue to hold III
office. but he may. by the iudgmeu1I
be further disqualified from hoidiu1
and enjoying am office OF honoE'
profit or trust under this state.'
The attorney general also referc6
TO his contention made Before -
sustained by the supreme court a
the effect that it has been the polfcJ
of the state fer the past thirty ysarH1
dating back 10 the creation of thu
Office of state com missioner OF banks
IA All Ass aAAAC ~
confer the power Of removal upo1|
the Office of governor and o1k<(
state officials. He referred TO til
inaugural message OF the late Cow
ernor Fort who declared the chic
executive should be armed wit
some power both for the enforced
ment of the law and for the remov6|
OF those in public Office who refa1@
or neglect to perform their duty.
As to the question whether IN
removal clause in the Public uf!iif5
act is a valid and constitutional
feature of that law, the attorneI
general argued hat a legislative
enactment to be declared uncon<tI1
tutionaI must be invalid beyond ~
doubt. He also ~eontended that thu
state constitution by Implication an
thorizes the removal procedure pred
yided in the utility act1
The argument before the ourf IL
day did not deal with the testinon1
upon which the governor based h
findings of removal, it dealt simp1I
with the legal issue bearing upo
the right of the governor under thu
constitution to exercise the power q.
removal.
II your coal or gas range 1s not bail