The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-02-14


The militia bill substitute was re-
ported back by the committee.
The proceedings were as follows:
The Council.
Eleven members were present yester-
day, the member from Juab county
still being absent.
COMMITTEE REPORTS.
The joint committee on militia re
ported H. B. SO and c. B. II. recon-
Imending the passage OF an accompany
ing substitute.
The committee on judiciary recon-
mended G. B. So, in relation to assign
ments for the benefit Of creditors, with
amendments, in lieu of c. B. 81.
OPEN THE RESERVATIONS.
The committee on memorials to Con-
gress recommended the passage of the
memorial concerning the opening OF
the Uintah and Uncompahgre reserva-
lions for settlement.
! The committee on University and
Agricultural college recommended that
II. s. "a, authorizing the Governor and
secretary TO furnish deeds free OF
charge to settlers on university lands.
Also that C. B. Is, to provide for the
investment of the permanent fund OF
the University of Utah, be passed with
the amendments attached.
Also that c. c. r. s, providing that
no further appropriations be made fol
| the improvement of the property OF
public institutions for which the terri
tory does not hold a title in fee simple
be passed.
NEW BILLS.
Tsvlor introduced c. B. IS, to prevent
! -sr,r
! judgment and Immediately after max
ing assignments.
Booth, Of Salt Lake, introduced c. B
Isl, for disqualifying certain persons il
civil actions as to testifying to any
fact that was equally within the knowl
edge of said witness and any deceased
lOr insane person.
POWER OF THE MAYOR.
Taylor's substitute for C. B. 40 in re
gard to qualified veto of mayors o.
cities of the first and second class wa:
taken up for consideration.
Taylor said that the gist of G. 3. a
is the giving the mayor absolute powe
in cases of removal and appointment
1t leaves in his hands political suprem
acy which should be avoided in an.
city. 1t makes officers serving unde
him his servants, as it were. The,
know if he is not pleased with thei
services they may be summarily re
moved. The substitute differs from tn
original bill in that the power, if givel
at all, comes from the legislature. Tn
power given the mayor by c. 3. 49 i
ten times that of any member of tn
lefty council. He expressed the view
iof the majority of the people of Sal
Lake city when he said that no sucl
iautocratic power should be given in
if,,o he c-,11N . a VI
the right to recommend the removal o
lappointive officers, and the council shal
have the power to remove. Why SHOULD
an appointiVe officer be removed eX
lcept for cause? Such an officer SHOULD
have right to know what charges ar
made against him and the power t
defend himself, particularly if Their
may be political reasons for the change
He hoped the substitute would pass.
Booth Of Salt Lake, said according
to the provisions Of c. B. 40, it woul
take as strong a vote to remove a.
appointive as an elective fficer. H
did not believe it would tend to tn
public good TO give the mayor arb
trary power in the matter Of appoint
ments and removal. 1t is not in &C
cord with the principles of a demo
cratic government. No officer shout
be subject to a removal on the mer
mayor. He considered the passage {
c. B. 40 would be dangerous legisla
ton.
Eldredge said that laying aside a
political bias and looking to the we
fare of the citizens, he had prepare
= c. B. 40, because he thought it goo
/, measure. He viewed a corporation &
he did an individual It had, or Shout
have, the same rights. One of thes
rights is the appointive power
: business man has the right 10 dismis
an employee if he finds him ireff
: cient, and is under no obligation
state publicly his reasons for 80 doini
A corporation should have the san
right An appointive officer migf
, have faults or follies which occasione
I his removal, and it would be unju'
to him to have those reasons VENT
ated. The mayor should have tt
right to remove appointive officers
a reasonable extent. He could not st
: that any autocratic power was give
l, by c. 3. 49, The only objection he ha
= heard to the alleged Objectionable Sc
ton was that no third choice be give
|, the mayor, thus carrying. out II
adage, third time and out"
/, Taylor asked why greater privilege
l. should be given the elective than Il
appointive officers.
: E;ldredge replied, Because they re
X resent more directly the people ths
do the appointive officers"
1, Williams opposed the substitute I
= said there was a good deal IF conf
sion in the cities in the territory
regards the power of removal. i
louoted the present conditions in So
Lake, aud pointed out some of its i
h congruities, showing, among 9th
things. that no distinction was MAJ
lin regard to removal of elective al
i lappointive officers. The bill presents
: by the committee would give the pc
pie the right to expect relief from i
efficient officers. through the eXerci
2 of the powers of the mayor and cou
l. ell. There is no place in our COVER
l. ment fabric so weak as the municip
l. branches. He showed what a pow
o is exercised by the municipal COVER
l. ment in the levy and collection of $50
d 600 taxes annually. The city offic
it being so important, shall the people
is subjected to the delay of a ten day