The record-union., 1897-09-28
ATTORNEYS CLAIMS VETOED.
AUDITOR YOUNG REFUSES TO
PAY THEM.
Opinion of the Corporation Coun-
sci That the Board of Trustees
Cannot Allow Them

City Auditor Young presented to the
Board of Trustees last night his veto of
the claims of r. T. and W. H. Devlin
and l. T. Hatfield for services rendered
before the Superior and Supreme Courts
| il. the Stratton primary election case,
on the ground that they had not been
employed to perform any service for the
city. He had referred the matter to the
Corporation Counsel. and presented Mr..
Johnson's opinion in the matter, to the
| effect that they were illegal and should
not be paid
Sacramento, Cal, September 9th.
Hon. J. d. Young, City Auditor-Dear
Sir: Referring now to the claims pre-
sented against the city by AIessrs r. T.
and w. H. Devlin and L. T. Hatfield for
services rendered by these gentlemen in
the action of j. J. Mckinnon against the
Board Of Trustees I have to say: In my
opinion the action instituted in behalf of
the plaintiff was an action on behalf of
q private Individual, and so far as the
plaintiff or petitioner is concerned, was
in no way a matter for which the city
should be held liable The proceedings
was one brought, as you know. TO OBJ
tain a writ of mandate against the
Board of Trustees compelling them to do
certain things in relation to the calling
and holding of primaries. The board,
without consultation with the Mayor,
and indeed without any action as
board whatsoever, employed Messrs.
Devlin & Devlin to represent the indi-
vidual members of the board who were
opposed to a primary election under the
StrattOn law. | can see no legal reason
for the payment Of Mr.. Hatfield's 8 claim.
I am utterly unable to comprehend
wherein the municipality became liable
for the action of J. j. McKinnon or for
the action instituted in his name. 1t
seems to me there is more justice in the
claim of the Messrs. Devlin. and yet
under the plain provisions Of our char
ter l cannot but hold that theirs is an
unlawful demand against the city. Sec
ton 49 of our charter provides: 1T
shall be his Ghe City Attorneys duty
to prosecute on behalf of the people all
criminal cases before the Police Court
and City Justices of the Peace, and all
violations Of this charter and of city or
dinances and resolutions. 1t shall be
his duty to attend to all suits and other
matters to which the city is a party, or
in which the city may be legally inter
ested: provided, the Board of Trustees
shall have control of all litigation of the
city and may direct an attorney selected
by the Mayor to take charge thereof to
assist the City Attorney therein.
What is said by Messrs. r. T. and w.
Fl. Devlin in the brief filed with you in
relation to the Corporation Counsaps pO-
sitiOn regarding the matter is quite true
Even had he been consulted by the
members of the board who desired to
defeat the primary law he would not
have appeared for them, because his
opinion had been otherwise expressed;
and he would not stultify himself by at
tempting to uphold a view in which he
did not believe. However this may be-
those members who opposed the pri-
mary for themselves selected their coun-
sci without consultation with the
Mayor, and without any official act
whatever by the Board of Trustees until
the night after the mandate had been
granted By the Superior Court That
night, after the judgment of the Su-
perior Court had been rendered, a reso-
luton was passed by the board author
izing Messrs. Devlin to appeal the case,
the first official action taken by the
board. There had been ample time in
which to consult with the Mayor or in
which to ascertain his views in rela-
ton to the matter, and the plain pro-
visions of the charter in this regard
cert tainly were violated. While it is true
that the Board of Trustees is ex-offfcio
a Board of Election Commissioners, yet
the mandate in this case ran against
the Board of Trustees of the city of
Sacramento, the services were rendered
to the Board of Trustees and it was the
Board of Trustees that We're represented
by Messrs. Devlin.
| am of the conclusion therefore that
these claims are not valid claims under
the provisions of Section 10 of the char
ter. Respectfully,
HIRAM w. JOHNSON.
I return you herein the claims and also
the brief filed with you
letter from Mr. Hatfield was also
read, stating that, although he was pri-
marily employed by private parties to
test the validity of the law, that after
ward, in order to secure a decision from
the Supreme Court, at the request of
members of the board, in order to per-
feet the appeal and secure a decision. he
appeared bsfore the Supreme Court and
the matter was decided. He felt there
fore that he was entitled to payment, at
least, for nearly $40 cash expended, but
should not sue for it if he was not paid.
Devine moved that the claims be
passed over the Auditors veto.
Davis said he had opposed the testing
Of to l. ut 8 ~
and should have to vote against the
claims now
Devine denounced the law and said it
exposed the hand of the voter He be-
lieved that the Corporation Counsel to-
night should be instructed to carry the
law TO the Supreme Court and test it's
constitutionality.
Devine's motion was carried, Davis
voting no.