The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-28

went to the new City Hall and entered the
commissioners Office Just as the board was
taking a vote on adjournment. Colin NJ.
Boyd, the Governors appointee, occupied
Martins former official seat.
Martin turned to the chairman, Frank
G.. Edwards, and asked to be recognized
and heard on the matter just acted upon
by the board. Mr.. Edwards replied by
saying:
"The board has adjourned Besides, you
are no longer a member, and therefore
have no right to be heard here at all.
With that Edwards repeated his an
nouncement that the Board of Fire Com
tests and his further requests to be heard
in the matter were fruitless. He and At
torney Heggerty also adjourned and pro-
ceeded to consult law, precedents and
Supreme Court decisions:
Mr.. Martin will combat the action of the
Commissioners and the seating of Mr..
Boyd by laying the case before the courts.
He said yesterday afternoon:
/ do not particularly care for the Office, but
do want to be treated like Il man and with
some courtesy. In the first place, Governor
Budd had no authority to remove me or APP
| point any other man 10 take my place. But
! that matter win be settled in court.
What most object to is the way was treated
this morning. Mr.. Edwards and all OF the
| other Commissioners know that as Port War
den I have duties to perform on the water
| front. and that am never at my place of bust
ness before II o'clock in the forenoon. Know
! ing this they called meeting for the unusual
! hour of IL and gave me thirteen minutes no.
| tice. 1t was merely by accident that got that
much time Well, they had Boyd there, all
| ready, and before | could appear to enter pro-
| test they had seated and sworn in my sue
| cessor Chairman Edwards was chiefly instru-
mental in this, and that is the queerest part OF
| it. Why, Edwards was in precisely the same
boat once. His successor, Parsons, was ap-
pointed. Edwards refused to give up his Office.
| Parsons sued, and Judge Shafter decreed that
| Edwards was out and Parsons in. Edwards
appealed to the Supreme Court, and that tri-
| bunal reversed Judge Skaters decision and re-
seated Edwards. This case of mine is exactly
| similar. The power that appointed Edwards
appointed me Now that the other Cornmis-
| sioners have taken this snap judgment on me
shall maxi, every effort to regain my seat in
| gerty and Senator Frank MCGOWAN.
Mr.. Boyd said:
| Il did not seek this appointment and had no
! idea OF running into any legal complications.
! Governor Budd sent me word to call and see
! him at the California Hotel one evening last
| week. | went as requested and became first
acquainted personally, with the Governor. He
/ informed me that he wanted to appoint me as a
member OF the Board of Fire Commissioners
| because he thought my past connection with
| public affairs in this city and county had well
! qualified me for the position.
OF course felt complimented by the Cover
nors tender of the appointment, and when he
asked me if would accept the Office gave him
a favorable answer. Nothing more was said or
done until received my commission.
| What will do In case of legal contest by
| Mr.. Martin? Well shall endeayor to hold the
! position until am declared ineligible by the
courts that have jurisdiction in such matters.
Back of all this turmoil of commits
| sioners on various boards and appoint
ments by the Governor that are combated
/ a -, -
tests, decisions and precedents. Charles j.
Heggerty, one of the attorneys for Mr..
| Martin, gave the status of the case-as
viewed bv him in law and decisions--yes-
terday afternoon. Said Mr. Heggerty
There will be complaint filed in the SUI
perior Court tomorrow against Colin M. Boyd
to determine mis- right to hold the office of Fire
| Commissioner. vice Mr.. Martin. The case is
identical with that of Edwards and Parsons. In
| order to give comprehensive view of the
| situation 1T will be necessary to refer to lega
| actions OF the past.
In March, 1878, under the act providing fol-
paid Fire Department in the city and county
of San Francisco. the Board of Fire Commits
sioners, which was created by the act of March
1865 and continued by the acts of April, 1877
ard March, 1874, was in existence in San
Francisco. There lies the basis of the con
| troversy.
By section OF the act of March, 1874, the
persons omprising the Board of Fire Commits
sioners then existing were permitted to serve
out their terms of Office. Three of these terms
expired in December, 1875, and the other two
in December, 1877. The law further provided
that at the general election in said city and
| county, to be held in November, 1875, three
persons should be elected TO serve as Fire Com
mssioners for four years from the first Monday
| in December, 1879, and any vacancy should be
filed by the Board of Supervisors
On March %, 1878, the Legislature reorgan
lied the Fire Department of San Francisco
| creating new Board of Fire Commissioners
| consisting OF five members, but who were not to
be appointed until the expiration Of the terms
| of Office of the then existing board three OF
which would expire in December 1879, and
the other two in December, 1881. 1t was pro
| vided that the three vacancies occurring in
1879 should be filed, one by the Board of SUI
pervisors, one by the Judge of the Municipal
Criminal Court and one by the Judge of the
| County Court. The other two were to be ap-
| pointed in December, 1881, by the Board Of
Supervisors. The act also provided that there
after the appointments OF Commissioners
should be made in the same manner, and the
terms 10 be four years from the date of appoint