Message of the Governor of Georgia [Hoke Smith], to the General Assembly in the matter of the removal of Joseph M. Brown, commissioner, July 20, 1908

MESSAGE
OF TIU:
Governor of Georgia
\l.\T ITK O! THI-.
REMOVAL OF
JOSEPH M. BRO\V".'\
C().\1\l!SSIONFR
J t LY 20. l1JOt1

MESSAGE
OF THE
GOVERNOR of GEORGIA
T THE GENERAL ASSE~l:BL Y 1N THE ~fATTER OF THE
REMOVAL OF
JOSEPH M. BROWN
COMMISSIONER
JULY 20, 1908
Atlanta, Georgia The Franklin -Turner Company
Printers1 Publishers, Binders

MESSAGE
STATE OF GEORGIA, ExECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
c\'l'LANTA, GA., July 20, 1908.
To the Senate and House of Represcntati-ves:
On the 21st of August, 1907, I suspended Mr. Joseph M. Brown from the office of railroad commissioner. In pursuance of the requirements of law, I have the honor to report to you the fact of such suspension and the reasons therefor.
First. Prior to August 22, 1906, the elate of the Democratic primary at which I was nominated for Governor, I reached the conclusion that Mr. Brown did not, as a railroad commissioner, properly 'regard the interests of the people. Hi's general attitude and conduct upon the questions arising between the railroad companies and the people were disapproved by me, and I publicly stated that if elected Governor I would suspend him.
Second. On June 7, 1907, the Railroad Commission passed an order reducing passenger rates in Georgia. The records of the commission show that Mr. Browa offered a moti'on to adopt what he termed the zone system of passenger rates. This motion received the support of Mr: Brown alone. Thereupon Commissioner Hill moved the adoption of the new schedule of passenger rates, and t1pon the same being put to a vote Com-

4
missioners Hill and Stevens voted for the new schedule of reduced rates.
"Upon this motion," I quote from the records of the Railroad Commission, "Commissioner Brown voted "'No.'"
In connection with his vote he filed what is termed "a motion by Joseph M. Brown, commissioner." This paper was subsequently printed in pamphlet form, covering eighty pages, and after the decision of the commission, was distributed throughout the State, in part by Mr. Brown and in part, as I have been informed, by railroad companies. It contained arguments and statements adverse to the reduction of passenger fares as made by the Railroad Commission, and also arguments to show that the reduction of freight rates was not beneficial to fue masses of the people.
While I concede the right of any commissioner to disagree to the action of the majority reducing a freight or passenger rate, or fixing an obligation upon the railroad companies with reference to any service they may be called upon to perform in behalf of the people, I deny bi's right to remain upon the commission and furnish arguments and evidence for the railroad companies to attack the action of the commission in the courts. I deny his right to agitate in opposition to action of the commission, thereby encouraging litigation by the railroad companies against the commission.
When the Railroad Commission renders a decision upon any subject favorable to the people either in the

5

line of reducing passenger or freight rates, it has be,;:n the almost uniform course of the railroads to seek by injunction in the Federal courts to prevent the action of the commission from being put into effect. The ac~ t,ion of the commissfon becomes the action of the State. When a railroad company brings a legal procedure to enjoin the action of the commission, the commissioners are made parties, and are called upon to defend what the commission has done.

The Attorney-General of the State and other State officials are also sometimes made P?-rties. As the action of the majority of the commissioners is the_ action of the State the Attorney-General would not publicly question the wisdom of the majority of the commissioners. He should give their action his loyal support. Even more, each one of the commissioners i;hould support the action of the majority of the commissioners, for they in all cases of litigation over their action are the parties representing the State.

A commissioner who publicly disapproves the actiou of the .majority reducing a freight or passenger rate, joins the State's legal enemies, and opposes the State in the very work where he is employed to support the State.

Mr. Brown knew when he made public his motfon

after the rates were fixed by the commission that the

action of the commission would be attacked in the courts,

for

representatfves

of

the

.r.

a

i

l

ro ''

a. d

s .

had ,

so

stated

in

Mr. ".

6
Brown's presence at the hearing of the application to have the rates reclucecl.
I did not suspend Mr. Brown upon my inauguration because there were measures pending before the legislature, which I deemed of great importance, and I clid not wish to place before the bodies this additional questi'on, as it would occupy time and perhaps hinder action upon the measures to which I have referred.
The legisla.ture did not pass these measures until th~ last hours of the session. After the adjournment I was considering ,the propri'ety of suspending Mr. Brown. The time was near at hand ,vhen I knew the commission would be in litigation with the railroad companies over the passenger rates which Mr. Bro,vn had publicly condemned. \Vith Mr. Brown left upon the commission we ,youlcl have had a representative of the State wh,) was distributing his opinions containing matter adverse to the State in litigation where his office requfred him to represent the State. The advantage to the State of filling his place with a commissioner who would support the action of the commission was obvious.
Still I he-sitatecl about suspenchng him bec'.1use the legislature had adjourned, and he could not be given an opportunity to have my decision reviewed until his term of office hacl ended.
Third. On August 20, 1907, I received a commu111cation from Mr. Brown. It was left in my reception room without exp.Janati<)n. It is necessary to know the

7
peculiarities connected with its transmission to properly understand its meaning. It was sent to my office ad-dressed to me in a large sealed e,nvelope marked "pet- sonal and confidential" on the front of the envelope. The words "personal and confidential" were underscored three times, and surrounded by four heavy ink lines. Across the seal of the t;nvelope was written i'n large letters the word "personal," underscored five times and boxed in four heavy ink lines. The envelope was one which had belonged to my former law firm.. On the left hand corner was printed "Return in five days to Hoke Smith and H. C. Peeples, Atlanta, Ga."
I mention these details as they show the, great care used to bring the envelope to my personal and exclusive attention, even to the extent of creating the false impression that it came from some one connected with my old law -firm.
foside this large envelope was another large sealed envelope.. This inner envelope was addressed to me and marked "personal and confidenti'al," these words also being doubly underscored.
From these ,facts it may be seen how intent was the puri)ose of the sender of the envelope that no one but myself and the sender should know the contents of the inner envelope.
Inside the outer envelope was a letter, of which the following is a copy :

8

"Governor Hoke Smith.

"DEAR Srn : During the past campaign for the Democratic nomination for Governor you repeatedly referred to me as a 'card-writing commissioner.' I did write several cards exposing the fallacy of some of the charges
against the Railroad Commission and against me in-
dividually; but there was one 'card' which I refrained from writing. Its text could have been the enclosure in the sealed envelope which accompanies this note.

Respectfully, etc.,

(Signed)

"JOSEPH M. BROWN.

"Atlanta, August 20th, 1907."

In the foregoing letter, which I read, Mr. Brown put me on notice that the inner envelope, did not contain a further communication to me, but that its contents were t_he "text" of a "card" which he had "refrained from writing" during the campaign which I had made for Governor. Mr. Brown had published many cards, covering all phases of the railroad controversy. A number of them were directed at me and were quite offensive, yet he notified me that in this inner sealed envelope he
sent me the "text" of a "card" which even during the
excitement of the campaign he had refrained from publishing, and he sent it in a way to insure that no one could see it or know of his sending it but myself. ,
Mr. Brown stated that he refrained from writing the "card" the "text" of which he sent me in the sealed envelope. This was equivalent to saying thq.t he restriiried

9
himself from publishing it and withheld publication aftei considering the propriety of publication.
I was unwilling for Mr. Brown in this way to force upon r.ny attention offensive matter which he had refrained from publishing, and, therefore, I did not break the seal of the inner envelope.
He knew at the time he sent me the communication of August 20, 1907, that I was considering, if he did not believe I was on the point of ordering, his susptms10n. What was his object, then, in seeking to show me the "text" of a "card" which up to that time he haJ "refrained" from publishing?
The inference was that he desired me, and me alone, to know the text of some attack which he had "refrained" from publishing during the gubernatorial race, but which, if I suspended him from office, he would publish. Conceding that Mr. Brown was in a normal condition mentally, the logical conclusion was that he meant to prevent the Governor of the State from following his convictions in the discharge of his official duty by an implied threat to publish something offensive to the Governor if the final decision of the Governor was adverse to his interests.
This was the construction which I placed upon his communication.
The only other constructfon which could have, perhaps, been given to the communication was that Mr. Brown, satisfied that he would be suspended, sought to place an

10
affront ,upon the Governor in connection with his retire ment, and thereby get before the public the offensive matter contained in the card he had "refrained" from publishing.
After considering the communication, I determined that all reason for hesitation was removed.
On August 2I, r907, I suspended him from the office of Railroad Commissioner. I returned the inner N1velope with the seal unbroken. At the same time I sent him the order for his suspension.
The outer envelope with its peculiarities is in my possession, subject to your inspection.
HOKE SMITH, Governor.