The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-09-04
GROUNDS ON WHICH THE DIS
APPROVAL Is BASED.
His Honor Holds That the Matter
Has Not Been Before the Courts
For Adjudication and the Question
Has Not Been Judicially Deter
mined.

tual chief SO far as the charge OF She
department is concerned and the sal
airy since earned. construetiveiy or
otherwise.
Yesterday The Herald published the
deposition of Captain Donovan relative
to the charges filed against Chief Pratt.
This deposition was regularly taken
before a notary, and in the presence of
Chairman D1nnAnny of the fire and DO
lice board. other witnesses in the case
who, like Donovan, we're compelled TO
leave the city. gave their dispositions
They were Hon. o. J. Salisbury, Hon:
e. 3. Stephens and Davy Nelson, and
their statements we're published
The deposition OF Captain Donovan
was published in The Herald the same
way for what it was worth. IL was
taken before the chairman OF the board
and a. notary public, as stated, upon
charges formally made and for use in
trial pending. and was an olheiai docu-
ment-
THE MAYORS VETO.
Yesterday Mayor Glendinning again
brought the matter to public notice by
filing with the city recorder his objec-
tions to the item of S1.011.90 made pay
able to the deposed chief in the appro-
priation list passed by the city council
Tuesday evening. The item objected
to is Pratts claim for salary while
Captain Paul served as chief. and the
claim is based on the decision of the
supreme court that his dismissal With
out trial was Illegal. Under the new
law the executive veto applies only to
the matter disapproved and does not
affect the balance of the appropriation
list.
| WHY THE MAYOR DISAPPROVES-
Following is the context of the may
or's veto:
II herewith return the appropriation
bill passed by the city council on the
31st nit. with my approval except as
TO item No. 375 for 81. 01f.30 TN favor or
Arthur Pratt, which is hereby disap-
proved.
This appropriation is made, as L
understand it, to pay Mr.. Pratts salary
! as chief of police between Dec Z. 1896,
when he was dismissed by the board OF
police and fire commissioners, and jury
|, 1897 The question as to whether Mr..
Pratt is entitled to salary during that
period has not been before the courts
| for adjudication, and consequently has
not been judictally determined. but the
supreme court having decided
| that he was Illegally dismissed
because he had not had
| trial upon charges and an op-
! portunity to be heard, it may be ad-
| mitted for the purpose of this commu-
| nication that he is entitled to the salary
| attached to the office of chief of pofee
! between the dates named
| at seems that on July Is, 1897, and
| after Mr.. Pratt had been reinstated by
| the board. under the decision of the
| supreme court he was suspended from
duty as chief pending a trial before said
/ board on charges which had hereto
fore been preferred against him. He
| is still under such suspension. but not
withstanding this fact the council on
| Aug. =, 1897. ordered that during his
{ present suspension he be PAID the sal
! airy of chief and salary warrants nave
been issued to him by the auditor for
/ the months of July and August,
amounting to $500.
Being advised by the law depart
! ment of the city that Mr.. Pratt is not
| entitled to salary during this period OF
suspension and pending the determine
ton of said charges. [ recommend that
! the sum of $225, that being the amount
of his salary from date of suspension
July 49, until Sept. l. and which has
been paid Mr. Pratt. as above stated
! be withheld from the amount of S1.Ol1. Sc
sought TO be paid to him by this ap-
preparation.
IN his petition to the council. dated
July 81, Mr. Pratt states in substance
that his present suspension does not
operate to deny him the compensation
attached to his office. and that he is en-
titled under the law to be paid the sal
airy Of chief whether suspended or not
until finally dismissed after a trial
THE city attorney insists thai
whether Mr. Pratt is entitled to salary
during the period of his present sus-
pension depends upon the question
whether he has been legally suspended
and that as all the legal Prescriptions
are in favor of the boards action unit
the contrary be shown, his salary
should be withheld until this case i:
finally decided This view being con
yineing to me- 1 am opposed to paying
this sum Of S1,011.3o unless the sum OF
S225. before referred to, be deducted
therefrom.
II attach to this communication {
COPY of letter from the city attorney
to the city auditor, in relation to this
matter. and respectfully request tina
the council reconsider its former actor
In ordering the auditor to issue salary
warrants to Mr.. Pratt from month t.
month pending the hearing of the
charges upon which he is now sus
pended"