The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-03-15

making such statements If he had
any testimony. it should be put in;
The defense had 10 objection.
Judge Judd then proceeded with his
argument, of which the following is
a verbatim report:
JUDGE JUDD'S ARGUMENT.
In the beginning of my argument l
take the position that the duties of the
board of fire and police commissioners,
under the act Of the legislature Great
ing the board are largely adminIstra-
tive
Sections 5 and of the act OF assem-
bly, creating the board make it part
of the police and fire departments.
Section 5 provides that no person
shall be appointed TO any position in
either department except by the APP
prowal Of the board.
Section provides that the board
shah propose and adopt rules for the
regulation and government of both
the fire and police departments. and
for the selection and appointment OF
persons to be employed therein.
Section Z provides that the chiefs of
both departments shall be appointed
by the board and shall hold office dur
ing good behavior, subject to removal
by the board as thereafter provided in
the act.
IL
board to supervise and control the fire
and police departments and see that
the officers. members and employees
shall faithfully discharge their duties.
The board. when all four of its mem
beTS concur, may remove any officer
or member arbitrarily, when in its
opinion the good Of the service in the
department will be subserved thereby.
DUTIES ARE ADMINISTRATIVE.
have said that the duties of the
board We're administrative. Indeed. it
must be apparent from the review that
/ have made Of the law that the most
important duties OF the board are en-
tirely administrative. There is no e5-
Gaping the position that the ultimate
responsibility for the proper ana just
management of both departments
rests upon this board. But it may
be replied. suppose all this is so; this
board is sitting here as a court, trying
the chief Of the fire department upon
written charges preferred by the
mayor. ana is proceeding, and must
proceed to judgment in its capacity
as q court" In a qualified sense con-
cede this position; but while ii may
be sitting now as court, II is only in
a Quasi judicial capacity. because the
ultimate responsibility for the correct
partments resting upon the board,
every duty it may be obligated to per-
form under the law must be performed
with view 10 the public service; and
in this sense whether the duties to he
performed be purely administrative or
quasi judicial. they must alike loon to
the one result, namely, the public
good.
Courts ordinarily follow the stric:
letter of the law and pronounce juds-
ment accordingly. "let the chips fail
where they may"
This board in this investigation.
w lille taking proof and pronouncing
Judgment. unlike q court, must see 10
ii that the Chips fall" in the right
see that their judgment subseryes the
public service. The board is not
bound in nor hedged about by any
arbitrary rules, but all rules as we'll
as acts must look to consequences.
Shough the board may be performing
a quasi judicial function.
TRUE INTENT OF THE LAW.
shall now proceed to show what
have said IS the true intent of the law
creating this board. not only in that
part pertaining strictly TO the admin
istrati tive duties of the board. but equal
~ so with respect TO that part confer
ring the power the board IS now exer-
cisnr
have already mentioned. and now
repeat, that by section IA Of the act,
the board -four members concuITing)
may remove any officer in either de-
nartment where "in their opinion the
good Of the service will be subserved,"
and this without assigning any cause
Why was this power given? The an
ever is plain. The ultimate RESPONSE
biiity for the good of the public ser
vice must rest somewhere. 1t is aXi-
omatic in the science Of government
that to compel an efficient service there
must be a power commensurate with
the responsibility.
II may be truly said that this arbi-
ira 7 power of removal is in some
sense judicial No charges need be
preferred. and no evidence may be
taken, but the board, nevertheless, in
exercising this power does so because
the members thereof are in possession
of factz and circumstances which con-
vince their minds that the good Of the
public service requires such action
The members Of the board cannot act
from spite, spleen or prejudice. If they
do, they not only ignore the public
good. but violate their oath of office
On the other hand. when they see that
such action is demanded by the public
good. then they must remove, or they
equally violate their oath
To sII this an sdnission will prob