Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1922-02-04

Basis of Charges.
The basis of ), the charges against
the board members is understood to
be- in part based upon contracts let
for supplies for the various state In
stitutions, it having been alleged in
reports Of the governor that tho
states. Interest ha snot been conserve
cd lin the letting of such contracts,
some of which have been let to high
est bidders. Higher prices have been,
paid for supplies than is held neces-
Lary, it lis charged. and ttgross in
competence" will be charged. No
answer was given to the demand to
resign. but it has been reported that
the two board members, expecting to
be removed, had engaged legal coun-
sci in advance. ~
Governor Nestos had previously
stated that heS would not undertake
any removal proceedings Of any Nom
partisan or other officer of the for
NOR administration that was not ann
ply justified. and where the evidence
would not stand 1aa e. the test. Of the
courts. c t4..Ssss Se,+S
Ample Grounds. Il
His actien:sin demanding the. resis-
nattona- tst taken to. mean that the
executive believes he has ample
grounds for demanding the removal
as s1s6 6e0h bitt tsrly scrtt eixedS I'M
some quarters for not removing sew
eral Nonpaftfsan Office holders who
had been the subject. Of many bitter
ampaigh charges. A
Totten,4 former preacher, was at
)uts with the Frazier administration,
t was generally reported, and it was
expected that Governor Frazier would
have attempted to rem oves him had
he not been defeated in the recall
election. Complaints also had been
reEtstefed against Cahill.to the Nom
partisan officials 1t was rumored. al
though this is not definitely known.
Nestos Explains. y
Governor Nestos has steadfastly
maintained that he would not be-
gin any removal proceedings until
ii any. was sufficient to warrant re-
moval and to stand the test Of the
courts. $g.+I IN
During the first six weeks Of my
administration no evidence was su b.
,nitted for the removal of any ap-
pointees that seemed to me to be suf-
flcient to warrant the commen cement
1t Is only during the last couple OF
weeks that the,evidence submitted has
been such as to make me feel that a
removal proceeding would be just and
certain to be sustained by the courts
in the event that an appeal was taken
There are at least couple Of cases
now where such evidence has been
submitted, and where it Is likely that
action will be brought very shortly.
Reviewing the complaints Of many
persons who had expected "house.
cleaning under the new administra-
tion. the governor said &R4f
Only for Cause. e.
II notice that some people and
newspapers are inclined to be critical
OF, the administration because the,
claim that long before this the gov.
ernor should have removed certain
appointees from the Office to which
they were appointed by the former
) administration. I do not believe thai
this criticism ;is warranted, although
OF course, 1t is a question upon which
there may be difference Of opinion
Practically all Of these appointments
were made for certain definite
period Of time, such period expiring II
tho different cases III 1928. 1925 ane
1927. and in most cases these ap.
pointees are removable for cause only
:. .It is true that a general impres
sion, exists that abundant cause exist,
IN many Of these cases. and apparentl.
this impression seemed to be vel
founded in the light Of the reports. o
the general activities OF these ap.
Dointees and their qualifications fol
the position they hold.
II have announced It as my atti
tude. however, that I have seen nj
occasion to change my mind. that .
viii commence none of these proceed
ings until the evidence produced be
fore me appears to me to be. sumcien
Is warrant the removal and such q
would he legally sufficient to sustain
nay order Of removal in case an ap
peai ware taken therefrom to tn