The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-11-14
MARTIN APPOINTED.
He Will Succeed Jackson as Fire
Commissioner.
The Grounds on Which the Democrats Will
Make a Contest-Some Peculiar Cues
tious Of Law Involved.

1t is announced that Andrew ]. Martin,
keeper Of saloon at the corner OF Bush and
Kearny streets. has been appointed by Gov
ernor Waterman to succeed David b. Jack
son as Fire Commissioner, the latter having
sent in his resignation. Mr. Martin, how
ever. disclaimS all knowle lge of the matter,
and claims that he has not been an asprant
and has not been notified of the appointment
if it has been made.
The resignation of Mr.. jackson was made
under the clause of the Consolidation Act,
which provides that no person shall be
eligible to any elective Office during his in
cumbency as Fire Commissioner. Under
tlis, it is claim ed, he was compelled to re-
linquish tine latter office before the vote was
announced making him Supervisor-elect
CONTEST EXPECTED.
Following Governor Waterman, the
Board of Supervisors will probably appoint
Democrat to contest the matter with Mr..
Martin, AID before taking any further
steps will await the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Parsons versus Ed
wards which is now awaiting that tri-
bunaps consideration.
Tie case is peculiar one, and will be
watched with no small degree of interest, as
the outcome will decide the coutrol of the
Fire Department for several years to come.
The Democrats claim the right of the
Board of Supervisors t, appoint under the
Consolidation Act of 1S77-7S, in which it is
provided that the Fire Commission shall
consist of five persons of good character,
three to be appointed by the Board of SUI
pervisOrs, one by the Judge of the MI
n;cpal Criminal Court and one by the
Judge of the County Court. Tbs would
seem at first glance to be clear l4wil be
recalled that these is no Municipal Criminal
Court and no County Court. This fact, the
Republicans claim, makes the clause in the
Consolidation Act nugatory and causes the
appointing power to revert to the Governor.
The Democrats meet the objection by as
sorting that the Superior Court, under the
new Constitution, is vested with all the
rights and powers of the County Court, but
here again the R-pub leans head them off
by asking in which of the twelve Superior
Judges is the power vested. 1t was over
these points that the case of Parsons versus
Edwards was fought.
HISTORY OF THE FIGHT.
The history OF the case briefly is as fol-
lows: On December J. 1889, and December
8, 1857, Frank G. Edwards was appoint d
and reappointei rs Fire Commlssio er for
this city and county. On April I'd, however,
action was commenced in the Superior
CourG by Thomas }. Parsons, an APP ointee
of Governor Waterman, to GUST him. Ait
hearing the case Judge Shafter decided on
July 9th in favor of Parsons, and Edwards
was compelled to step down and out At
the same time and under the same decision
Il. p. Clark. another Republican. was in
stalled i'll the lace If D. j. Nah ny, a
Democrat. 5 ortly after this Mr.. Clark
died, and on September 1st the Board of
Supervisors appointed X. III. Mann to take
his place. On the following day Governor
Waterman appointed d. Il. jackson who
took the seat.
Alter the decision of Judge Shafter, the
attorneys for Edwards took an appeal to the
Supreme Court, and there the matter rests
Upon the decision of the latter body de-
ponds therefore the entire matter.