Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1921-09-19

Soldiers who Fail Of Ap-
peintments Must Show bad
Faith on Part Of
Officials.
CASE AT JEFFERSON
Decides Against Soldier APP
picant Cor School bus
Driver.

Jefferson, Iowa, Sept. 19.-Soldiers
seeking preference in appointment to
public office, under the law enacted
to give them preference, must show
that officers and hoard which turn
them down and appoint civilians in
stead, act in bad faith.
Judge Hutchinson has so held in
the case of j. Frederick Lower ut
Scranton
Lower, soldier, sought appoint
lnent as school bus driver. The school
board chose David Lewis, civilian.
Lower sought, by mandamus, to set
aside the Lewis appointment. Judge
Hutchinson decided against the soldier.
The court said.
I'm case of this nature the matter
for the determination of the court is
as to whether the board, in making
the selection and appointment, has
III the exercise of its discretion acted
honesty and in good faith, and has
not abused the discretion which the
law reposes in it.
Merits Undecided.
I'm this class Of cases the matter
does not come mp before the court
tor the court to decide the question
Of the respective merits Of the con-
testants as they were to he decided
by the board before which the appli-
cations were made. The soldiers pre-
ference over others where the soldier
has equal or greater qualifications
than the others, and the board or
tribunal making the appointment is re-
auired to consider the respective quail
ticatiOns of these plaintiffs and to de-
termine as to whether or not the SOL
der has equal qualifications with the
others, and il the board determines in
good faith that he has equal qualifica-
tons with the others it il the duty I'M
der the law OF the board to appoint him.
But il in the exercise of The discretion
which the law lodges in the board, the
uOucStIS huA NSsSAAAA'>''
that the soldier does not possess equal
qualifications with some other, then an
appointment Of the other made by the
hoard can not he disturbed in Il proceed
lug by mandamus such as is brought
here.
There are many things that enter
Of fk<10t NO
0f one who seeks an appointment OF this
kind and which may be and should be
taken onto consideration by the tri.
bunal making the appointment.
Question Of Good Faith.
1T is not question Of whether the
court in mnndam,ls would reach a
different conclusion from that which
the board has reached. but it is a
question only of whether the hoard in
the exercises of the discretion which
the law repOscs in it. has acted in good
faith and honesty and has reached its
conclusion with the idea that, il the
soldier has equal qualifications. he must
ne appointed; otherwise, not.
There is nothing before this court
which charges nor establishes bad
faith. nor dishonest motive on the
part of the local board. The board
OF education was OH the ground,
knew the parties, and ii it was a
question of merely acting upon the
information which might be brought
before the tribunal making the al-
p0intment. this board was in pO-
sitiOn to act to advantage, If 1t acted
honestly. There is nothing the law
would justify this court in disturb
ing the findings made by the board
of education: the law does not per-
nit the courts 10 to do. II this local
L0ar,l had made an arbitrary appoint
lent without considering the quail
ications Of this soldier. this court in
this action in mandamus would re-
.Guire the local hoard to reconsider
the matter and determine the re-
spectiye qualifications of the parties.
but there has been consideration
liz the hoard of these respective quail
Ncations of the parties, and, under
the law. if the board has acted in good
faith and honesty in raaehing its con-
ciusions, the court can not interfere :;
and since the plaintiff does not charge
in his petition that the hoard acted
with a dishonest motive, and since
there Is no evidence Of such dishonest
motive, this action will necessarily be
dismissed to all Of which the plaintin
G,ily excerpts.