The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1933-11-16
Butte Hears Argument OF,
Wenxel'S Plea for Relief
Question Presented Is Whether
Governor Has Power to
Gust Commissions
BULLETIN

Arguments in the case OF r. r. Wen
eel, seeking reinstatement as work
+, mems compensation commissioner
were completed late Thursday. Judge
Buttz indicated a decision would be
made before Monday, when hearing
on the charges against Wenzel Is to
start before special commissioner.
Arguments on whether Governor
william LANCER has authority to s,ls-
pend and remove r. 4. Wenzel as q
member of the North Dakota work.
mems compensation bureau were
heard Thursday by Judge G. w. BUTTE
Of Devils Lake IN Burleigh county
district court.
Former Governor George F. Shafer
attorney for Wenzel, who has been
suspended by LANCER pending out
come of hearing on charges against
him. argued for the issuance OF a writ
Of cert:orari to review the proceedings
so far. He contended the statute un-
der which LANCER was proceeding
does not provide authority for re-
moval of Wenzel or other state Of
ficials.
Charles G. verret. assistant attor-
ney general, and s. E. Ellsworth,
Jamestown. special assistant attorney
general, resisted the motion for issu-
ance Of the writ.
The statute under which Wenzcl
was suspended and the removal pro-
ceedings instituted, Shafer argued,
applies only to certain county and
municipal officials. This law states
that the governor may remove for
cause county. village and city Off
GERS, including custodians OF public
funds, except the state treasurer.
What Does Law Mean?
Verret commended that the reference
to the state treasurer indicates the
statute applies to all state officials
who are custodians Of public funds.
except the treasurer. while Shafer
claimed the reference to the state
treasurer. and failure Of the law to
specify state officials. indicates the
law does not contemplate that state
officials come under its provisions.
Judge Buttz remarked at the pro-
ceedings that the crucial point in the
case appears to be whether worknen
compensation commissioners are Gus
todians Of public funds.
Shafer argued that Wenzel could
not be considered q custodian Of pub
lie funds, while verret and Ellsworth
claimed worklnen compensation COM
missioners are such custodians.
6hafer declared that II verret's ar
gtlments concerning workmen COM
penSation commissioners are correct
then every state official could be con-
sidered q custodian Of public funds.
He argued the workmen compersa-
ton lAw specifies that the state treas
urer Is the custodian of its funds.
Verret told the court he believed
1t clear workmen compensation COM
missioners are custodians Of public
funds, but that even II this conten-
ton Is not correct he believes the
governor has power to ADOPT the
statute invoked In the proceedings to
suspend. and order . removal hear
ing against Wen5el.
Claims Court poWerle1s
He contended the court Is powerjess
to grant 4 writ Of certiQrari until the
governor has exercised his julisdic-
ton III the case BY hearing the case.
shafer declared that by suspending
Wenzel and ordering q hearing on
the charles. set for next Monday, the
governor already has exercised juris-
diction.
. When Ellsworth told the court he
could not understand how Wenzel ex-
lpected to obtain relief through GER
tiorau proceedings. Judge BUTTE re-
marked that Shaler has argued there
Is no appeal from the suspension or
der against Wen5el. Shafer added
that II the court agrees Wenrel Is not