The San Francisco call., 1897-08-29
SUPERVISORS TN
TREPIDATION
Do Not Like the Prospect
of Being Turned Out
of Office.
Trial by Jury to Be Demanded
on the Charge Of NAL
faasance.
City Attorney Oreswell Warned the
Defendants of Their Peril
Long Ago.

The politicians of the new City Hall are
agitated over the prospects of a general
dismissal of the Board of Supervisors for
malfeasance because they did not fix the
water rates in February. So clear are the
provisions of the State constitution and
the statutes that ordinary observers cam
not see any chance for escape so far as the
Supervisors are concerned.
Judge Wallace's remarks at the argu-
ment of the demurrer in the case OF George
X. Fitch against the Supervisors are
taken by lawyers to mean that he will
conform to the strict letter and simple
Interpretation of the law, and il he does
that there can be no doubt of the ult,
for the constitution says the water rates
must be fixed in the month of February,
and that if the Supervisors fail in the dis,
charge of this duty they shall be punished
in the manner to be prescribed by the
Legislature. When called on to pass
Law in carrying out this provision OF the
constitution the Legislature said that
failure to fix the water rates in February
shall be punished by dismissal from
office and by fine.
Language could not be palmer, aud
unless the community is to. be given
another sample of judicial legislation the
lawyers say nothing can save the Super
visors from eviction.
The Supervisors cannot plead that they
are taken by surprise, for the reason that
City Attorney Cresweil, their legal adviser
under the consolidation act, warned the III
as long ago as the Goth of last February
that they were liable to be ousted If they
failed TO comply with the law, which re-
ouires the fixing of rates in February.
This warning was allowed to go unheed ed,
anu now the Supervisors have only them
selves to blame for any trout BILE or danger
they have to meet.
Considerable stress has been laid on
the proba bilitv that the Supreme Court is
not kindly disposed to Judge Wallace on
account of past differences, and that any
Judgment he pronounces Is likely to meet
with reversal in the appellate court. This
view was 10 a great degree negatived by
the prompt manner in which Judge Wal
lace's initial ruling in this case was sus-
tanned.
been brought into the discussion
by the citation of section 767 of
the Penal Code, which. in speaking of the
removal of civil officers otherwise than by
i'm peach ment, says: THE trial must be
by jury. and conducted in all respects in
the same manner as the trial of An indict-
ment for misdemeanor."
If this rule shall be held to apply in the
case under consideration the panel of
jurors in Judge Wallace's court will at
once become a potent factor in the history
OF San Francisco for this IS no ordinary
struggle, as is disclosed by The fact that
so many able attorneys have been re tanned
in the litigation.
Naturally enough, those interested are
looking forward to the result of an adj
verse result to the Supervisors. Section
769 of the Penal Code declares that upon
conviction The court must pronounce
judgment that defendant must be re-
moved from office. There has been some
suggestion that Notwithstanding any such
judgment the persons so declared 20 be
removed might continue to exercise the
duties of the office to which they had
been elected pending the decision OF an
appeal 10 the Supreme Court, but this
position appears TO tie rendered untena-
BILE by section ITO OF the Penal Code,
which says: From q Judgment of re-
movaI an appeal may be taken 10 the Su-
preme Court, in the same manner as from
a judgment III civil action; but until
such Judgment Is reversed, the defendant
is suspended ftom his Office. Pending the
appeal, the office must be filed as in case
of q vacancy"
The proceedings thus far in the case
against the Supervisors have been based
on the proposition that the court is to be
Sulueu entlTely Nv Tue PROVISIONS OF sec
ton 772 of the Penal Code; but it is un-
derstood that the defendants are not will
ing to risk all the eggs in that one
precarious basket, SO they will plead all
the sections of the code that seem to offer
them any chance of escaping the penalty
of their acts of procrastination. Under
the law Mr.. Fitch, the complaining wit
ness, is entitled to be awarded $500 from
each of the defendants.
When the Supervisors come to be tried
for their alleged failure of duty because
they did not fix the water rates in Febru-
ary it is probable that tney may demand
trial by jury.
German schoolboys study harder and
pIav lace h fhoso of INV ot har