The San Francisco call., 1896-08-09
WILL THERE Be
A CITY ELECTION?
The Question Involves a
Complicated Legal
Tangle.
HOW LONG rs A TERM +?
Officials Waiting to See if Their
Term Is Two or Four
Years.
FORCE OF THE FEE BILL LAW.
Clerk Curry's Wise Course-Liability
of the Sheriff-Attorneys'
Views.
OF THE FEE BILL LAW,

| Will there be an election of municipal
| officers for San Francisco next November,
| or will the incumbents hold over for an
other two years2 Will Sheriff Whelan
and the other City and County officials
with the exception of County Clerk
! Charles F. Curry), who refused to obey
the fee bill law enacted by the Legislature
of last year, be liable to civil actions for
! damages by persons who have been imam
| cially hurt? These are the questions
| which are just now bothering the brains
of lawyers and laymen. and which can be
| finally determined only by an anxiously
expected decision of the Supreme Court OF
| California.
Two test cases are now pending before
that august tribunal, viz: julius Kahn,
plalptiff and appellant VS.. Adolph Sutro,
William Broderick, James N. Block,
Harry T. Creswell and Charles S. Tilton,
constituting the Board Of Election Com
missioners of the City and County OF San
| Francisco. and William M. Hinton, the
Registrar of Voters, defendants and re-
spondents; and David Hale, respondent,
VS.. Edward McGettigan ct al, composing
the Board of Supervisors of Solano
County.
The tenure of Office issue is involved in
both of these cases. Reddy, Campbell
and Metson are the attorneys, amici
curim, in the San Francisco case, and in the
Solano case the respondent is represented
| by Messrs. R. B. Carpenter, f. @. Lusk,
Garret w. McEnerney and Frank Z. Dew
| lin. All of these attorneys are of the
opinion that the decision of the Supreme
Court last Friday in the case of Henry
Miller ct al, appellants. VS.. Charles F.
| Curry, respondent, foreshadows the ulti-
mate indors ement of their position con-
cerning the four years tenure of office,
and that there will not be any election for
City officers this year in San Francisco.
| County Clerk Curry, acting under the
advice of Delmas & Shortrldge, took the
safe course, and followed the provisions OF
| the fee bill OF last year.
| Sheriff Whelan ignored the new law,
and may, in consequence, become liable
| to actions for damages. In fact, it is gen.
orally understood that the only muni-
cipal officer who has enforced conscien-
tiously the provisions of the fee bill is
| County Clerk Curry, and for so doing he
has been subjected to much unmerited
abuse The probity of his conduct and
the wisdom OF his attorneys are now fully
! vindicated.
In the Miller-Curry case 1t was argued
by appellants that the act Of March %,
1895, though a general act, does not in
terms repeal the act of 1866; that there is
no necessary repeal by implication; that
it does not in terms apply TO the officers OF
l ,x,I 1.
general statute is to be read as silently ex-
Guiding from its operation the special
statute of 1865 Says the Supreme Court
in its decision:
The law under consideration is general in
its terms, and, while it makes no distinct
mention of officers in consolidated govern
ments, it undertakes to establish the fees not
alone of county and township officers, but OF
| other officers in this State In the somewhat
anomalous municipal corporations recognized
| by the constitution and known to the law as
consolidated cities and counties, the officers
| do not lose their distinctive character as
| county officers and of city officers merely be-
cause they hold within the corporate limits OF
such governments. The County Clerk of the
/ City and County of San Francisco, Sheriff Of
the City and County of San Francisco, Re-
corder of the City and County of San Francisco,
| are ehCH anu Ill County OHlCers. Iuey nave
no place properly as officers of the City. Upon
the other hand, the Mayor of the City and
County is distinctly and separately City
officer, as distinguish he'd from County officer.
A law, therefore, which under the constitu-
tional mandate undertook to regulate the
duties or the compensation of county officers
would fill all the basic requisites of the con-
| stitution, that all laws of a generals nature
| shall have a uniform operation (Con., Art I,
Sec. q, if it should be held that its terms did
not apply to and were not meant to apply to
county officers in consolidated governments.
And it must therefore be concluded, without
room for question, that the act under con-
sideration is in its terms applicable to the City
/ and County of San Francisco
So it is thus finally determined that the
statute of 1895 controls the collection of
fees of all county officers in San Francisco.
Sheriff Whelan will accordingly be COM
PEELED in future to adopt new schedule.
1t is provided in section / OF the act of
March %, 1895, that the Sheriff shall
charge and collect the following fees:
| For serving any process, writ. order or paper.
except as hereinafter provided, required by
law to be served by the Sheriff. so cents
| For serving writ of attachment execution