The San Francisco call., 1897-03-04
WEBSTER IS TO Be
SUPER|N TENDENT
Judge HebbarG Decides That
He Is Head of the
Schools.
Babccck Declared to Be Illegally
in Possession of the
Office.
Citations Adiuced to Show That the
Letter Case IS Not Parallel in
Any Respect.

Judge Hebbard yesterday handed down
decision that is of unusual Importance
to those who are interested in the welfare
of the public schools of San Francisco, the
intent being to decare that Reginald II.
Webster is the legally elected Superintend-
ent of Public Schools in this City. and
that Madison Babcock, who still holds
over, is in fact mere usurper. The case
was submitted for decision upon the fol-
lowing agreed statement of facts:
1t Is hereby stipulated and agreed by and
between the respective parties heretofore
plaintiff and defendant-"that on the 14th
day of October, 1895, the office OF Superln-
tendent of Schools OF The City and County OF
San Francisco became vacant by reason OF the
death OF Andrew ]. Moulder, who was elected
10 fill said office on Novemb Der q, 1894, for the
term OF four years, commencing on the first
THAT on the 24th day of October 1895, the
Board of Education for the said City and
County OF San Francisco appoin Madison
Babcock, defen dant herein, TO fill said vacancy
until the regular election the n next following.
"That on November 3, 1896, there was held
q general election throughout the State OF
California and at the same time and in coz
junction with said general election there was
held municipal election i'll and for and
throughout the City and County of San Fran
cisco.
saThat the electors who voted at said general
and municipal election were duly qualified
and registered electors OF said City and
County.
at is admitted that said municipal election
was proclaimed, held and conducted in the
mode required by law and was in all respects
n valid election, except with respect to the
following matter to wit: whether the time of
said election was proper and lawful time Tor
the election of superintendent OF schools OF
the City and County of SAN Francisco, as TO
which matter defendant makes no admission.
"That the proclamation OF said election in
cluded in the list OF officers TO be voted for at
said election one Superintendent OF Schools
for an uuexpired term
THAT at SAID election Reginald H. We bster,
the relator herein, and three others appeared
upon the official ballots used at said election
as candidates for said office OF superintendent
OF Schools.
THAT said relator, Webster. received the
highest number of votes given for the office OF
Superintendent OF Schools at said election.
Comm enting on this provision of the
consolidation act Jpdze Hebbard says:
Defendant notwithstanding the apparently
plain meaning OF this section, contends that
the recent case OF the People VS.. Budd, 40 Pac
Rep, 1860 has made it lawful for him to hold
the office of Superintendent OF Schools for
Mouder's full term, TO wit: un.l the election
in 1898 and he relies solely upon this case to
support his contention.
The case of the People VS.. Budd, decided by
the Supreme Court, September g. 1896, was an
Application for writ of mandate TO compel
the Governor to include In his proclamation
a call to fill the office of ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
for the unexpired term of Spencer G. Millard
deceased, the respondent having filled the va
cancy caused by the death OF Spencer G. Mil
lard by the appointment OF William I. Jeter.
The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding
that under article V, section 8 OF the constitu-
ton, when a vacancy occurs in the Office of
Lieu.enan t-Goyernor the Governor has power
10 fin the same by appointment, and that
when there is no other special constitutional
provision and no statutory enactment as to
the time such appoIntee shall hold, such as
''to the end OF the next legislature or ''until
the next election of the people," the appointee
may hold the off ce till the next gubernatorial
election.
After quoting from the language of the
Supreme Courts decision in the case OF
the People VS.. Budd Judge Hebbard says:
The reason ninEs ana conclusions reached by
the Supreme Court in the above-men toned
case are against the respondent here rather
than for him. By the section OF the consol-
a dation act, section IA, above cited, there is
lawful aut uthority for the holding OF an election
for the Office of Superintendent of Schools at
the time when it was held, Novem ber 8, 1896,
aud when both the complainant Webster and
the respondent Babcock were candidates be-
fore the people for election to that office.
Section IA says in unam biguous language
and concerning this very office, that the va,
cancy shall be filled by the people at the regu-
lar election then next following after the ap-
pointment made or after the vacancy created,
and it is conceded that the election held
Noyembe 3, 1896, was q general election
throughout the state OF California; that. eX-
cept so far as it concerns this particular office,
which is the question 10 be herein determined,
II was regularly conducted in the mode re-
quired by law and it was valid.
1t must also be conc eded that it was the
then next election following the appoint
ment of the respondent, Babcock. That it
was regular also ss 10 the Office of the Super
intendent of Schools must be held under the
said section ID of the consolidation act and
under the case of Ford VS.. Tillson, SO Cal. 701.
1t is the general policy of the law that pub
lie officers she'll be chosen by the sovereign
power of tnis Government-the people.
Therefore, upon the general principles of
our Government in relation to the election of
public officers, and upon the positive provi-
sions of the consolidation act in relation TO
the particular Office OF superintendent OF
Schools, 1t follows that Repinald II. Webster
complainant herein. having received the
highest number of votes for said office at the
election held on November 3, 1896, and not
the respondent, Madison Babcock, he, the said
Reginald II. Webster, is rightly entitled to said
Office of Superint ntendent OF Schools.
An order was made that Webster be put
in possession OF the office, and it is sup
posed that he will take possession at once,
that being the rule generally observed
whether there is an appeal to the Supreme
Court or not.