The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1891-05-03
POLICEMEN'S SALARIES.
Argument in Burr's Suit in the Supe-
rior Court.
Burr's Method of Procedure Objected
to-Was There Any Indebted
ness .-Aleged Flaws.

The suit of E. A. Burr against the City
Board of Trustees, to have declared in
valid the special tax voted for at the last
city election and levied for the purpose of
paying the salaries of the policemen who
worked without pay during the year
ending April l, 1889, was heard before
Judge Grant sitting IN Judge Catlin's
court yesterday.
The plaintiff had petitioned for a writ
of certiorari-to have the records of the
Trustees actions brought into court for
review-but when the case was called
yesterday the attorneys for the Trustees,
Messrs. E. c. Hart and Grove L. John
son, demurred to the petition on the
ground that a writ of certiorari was not
the proper method of obtaining relief, and
asked that the writ be dismissed, after
citing various authorities in support of
| their position.
| It was on the merits Of this demurrer
chiefly that the attorneys on both sides
argued all day until nearly six o'clock
| last evening.
ALLEGED FLAWS.
Messrs. Holl and Dunn appeared for
| the petitioner, Burr, and they argued
that they were proceeding properly-that
|
the real issue OF the case much quicker
| than by any other method. Mr.. Dunn
cited voluminous authorities to the court,
and Mr.. Holl followed in an eXtemporan-
eous dissertation on what he termed the
! fatal defects in the Trustees side of the
case.
Attorney Holl gave a history of the
police salary case from way back. In
| 1868, he said, a charter was adopted by
| the city and it provided for the appoint
ment by the Board of Police Commits
| sioners of certain number of policemen.
| This system existed until the adoption of
the new Constitution. Since then it
was thought advisable to increase
! the number of officers in Sacra-
mento, and the Legislature attempted
! to do it, and passed an Act permitting
cities OF the size of Sacramento to in
crease their police force to thirty. AT the
! time this Act was posed, said the attor-
| ney, there were grave doubts as to
whether or not the Act was constitutional,
yet the commissioners went ahead and
appointed the extra officers. When the
MATTER WAS TESTED
In the Supreme Court, the Act was de-
! clared unconstitutional, and the police
men got no pay for their years work. At
| the last session Of the Legislature another
Act was passed, permitting cities of the
size Of Sacramento to levy a special tax to
pay certain Indebtedness.
| Mr.. HOll said he was satisfied that the
new Act was as unconstitutional as the
Old one. In the first place, it was a round
about way of giving special legislation.
He characterized the Act itself as a litter
airy curiosity" and he marveled that
persons claiming to be statesmen could
perpetrate such a document upon the
people. To begin with, he said, the Act
provided for cities having population
not to exceed 10000" etc. A question
could be raised right there, he thought,
that would vitiate the Act, and that was:
how was the question of population
to be decided? The Act should have
stated g according to the last census" but
it did not.
The next fatal point was, what indebt-
edness was to be paid? The Supreme
Court had already decided, virtually, that
there was no Indebtedness in this case
the original Act having been declared un-
constitutional. According to this he did
not see how any money could be paid out
to the policemen.
STILL ANOTHER.
The new Act provided that the Trustees,
in their proclamation calling for the tax.
should specify how much money was
needed, and what it was needed for, but
this had not been complied with, and the
/ attorney considered it another fatality
In stating that the money was for an
Indebtedness, the Trustees, in their
proclamation, had stated a fact that was
not a fact.
Attorney Johnson replied briefly to the
other side-not deeming it necessary, he
said, to waste much time in replying to
the arguments of Mr.. Holl. That gentle
man, ne said, had got off on the wrong
track, and had not read his law books
very thoroughly. The main question at
the present time was not as to the legality
of the Act, but whether or not the plant
If had a right to proceed as he was doing
on writ of certiorari, as the remedy
for his alleged wrongs as a taxpayer"
The law was plain, he said, that in cases
of this kind the relief was by contesting
the election, or by writ of prohibition OF
by mandamus. He cOntended, however
that the writ of certiorori was out OF
place, and improper.
Mr.. Johnson cited number of authori-
ties in support of his position, and after
replying briefly to Mr.. Hollis other
points, submitted the case.
Judge Grant took the matter under adj
! visement and will render decision in q
| few days.