The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-01-28

istrar Hinton read the minutes of the last
meeting, which was held in June, 1895.
Mr.. Hinton wanted the performances OF
the men who were acting as Commission
ers under the unconstitutional law of 1895
approved and the employees paid.
This aroused City Attorney Creswell.
He was unwilling to consent to any such
course.
81 will do all can to sustain the acts OF
that body till it comes in opposition to the
law" he said. "Then I will stop. The
commission is declared t. have been IL
legal-in fact it never existed in law. So
none OF its acts or contracts are legal, and
none of its obligations are binding on the
City,
The City Attorney then explained that
the ousted Commissioners were not de
facto officers, for there was no de jure Office
for them to fill. Had there been de jure
Office then their acts would have been
binding on the City even though the Com
missioners were illegally appointed. But
the de jure Office was flied by the old
board. So the new Commissioners had
never really been officers at all, and their
appointees, therefore, could not expect
any salary.
"But," Mr.. Hinton argued, there has
only been one commission. l was the
registrar of that commission, and l ap-
pointed Mr.. Schenck and Mr.. MetZner. So
they are legally employees of the City,"
Technically, your statements m ay be
all right" said Mr.. Cresswell; "but in fact
I'm afraid you're little off, Mr.. Hinton
for remember distinctly your coming to
my Office with one of the recently deposed
Election Commissioners to ask me to in
dorse all their acts. This, you will re.
member mad to refuse to do. And the
records of that Election Commission will
show that both men were appointed by q
special resolution, will they not?''
Mr.. Hinton admitted that this was the
case. But he added that the men had
done good work and earned their salaries
Mr.. Creswell said he would like to see
the men get their money. He thought
that if the board allowed the claims they
would be acting illegally and rendering
their bondsmen liable for the amount. In
order that some retribution might be made
he was willing, though he did not know
the men or their politics, to vote for res.
olution requesting the Registrar to put
them to work and keep them at work as
soon as possible. He then moved that the
claim of James S. Reynolds, the clerk and
messenger of the board, be paid. Reynolds
was one of their own appointees and ha6
been continued at work.
Tax Collector Block thought that i
Reynolds was paid all should get theil
money So he wanted to amend Mr.
Creswell' 8 motion by having the claims o.
Chief Clerk w. I. Y. Schenck and G.. F
Metzner added.
'These men have been doing necessary
work." Mayor Sutro said. 81 think they
should all be paid
Mr.. Creswell said he was not Mr.. Sutro's
legal adviser, but he assured the Mayor
that his opinion would be made evident
by his vote.
He then voted with Auditor Brodericl
against Mr.. Blocks amendment. The
Mayor voted with Mr.. Block and the
amendment was lost. But Mr.. Creswell'.
appeal to allow Mr.. Reynolds claim
about which there was no dispute, wa,
also lost, for Mayor Sutro voted agains
it in order to get more time for considera
! ton, and Mr.. Block voted against it be