Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-07-16
This moRNIa.'s mEErING.

49, Nf-'s'A'eH y f'S 1890
This MORNIs1's MEETING.
Chief Pratt FILES Papers Taking Ex-
cepiicns To jurisdiction
and Charges.
Pofsusnt to adjournment the board
met OF III o'clock this murning with
the came parties present as at last
evenings session. Judge Powers
represented Chief Pratt and demurred
10 the ooard's Jurisdiction In the case
Tor the following eisons:
To tho Board of Police and Fire Com
missioners:
Gentlemen-And now comes Arthur
Pratt, chief OF police OF Salt Lake City,
and objects to the Jurisdiction of said
board 10 hear or try certain charges filed
against him said Arthur Pratt, for tho
reason that said board is not constituted
as tho law directs in this:
The law provides that the Mayor Of
the city OF salt Lake shall appoint two
members Of said board of different
political parties; That II. J. Dininny
and A. Nj. Grant are appointees of said
Mayor and that they are not OF different
political parties. On the contrary, at
the last general election, said Dininny
and said Grant each voted for the same
electors for President and for Vice
President. That said Dininny was APP
pointed as Democrat and said Grant
was appointed as Republican, but that
he is not and was not when appointed a
Republican, which inct was well known
to said Mayor and said Grant is not now
and was not then a Republican and did
not then and does not now support and
sustain the principles enunciated by the
last Republican national convention. On
tho contrary, he advocates and suslains
tho same political principles and policies
as said Dininny.
This objection is based upon an afli-
dsvit herewith filed.
ARTHUR PRATT.
Chief Of Police.
Ise affidavit attached to the otjec.
ton is IS iollows:
STATE OF UTAH, ss
County OF Salt Lake. As'
Arthur Prat. being duly sworn says:
That A NJ. Grant and HI. Dininny were
appointed to said board by the Mayor OF
Salt Lake Lake City. That said Dinin-
ny was appointed as a Democrat and
said Grant was appointed MS ltepubli-
can. Deponent further states, on inior-
nation and belief, shat said Grant is not
u Republican and does not suntain the
party as enunciated in its last national
convention and that said Dininny and
said Grant, both and each Of them,
voted at the last election for the same
electors for President and Vice President,
and that said electors were nominated
and voted for in tho interest of William
j. Bryan, the Democratic candidate for
President, all of which was we'll known
TO the Mayor OF said city, when said
Grant WAS appOiutpl.
Arthur PRATT.
Subscribed and sworn to before mo
this l6.b day OF July, A. d. 1897.
GEORGE L. FELT.
Notary Public.
~ motion TO set nside the boards
order suspending Chiei Pratt from
of counsel for Mr.. Pratt, his reason
being on the grounds stated above.
Commissioner Dininpy moved a
denial OF the motion and on its being
seconded by Mr.. Grant, such an order
was maize, all three commission
favoring 1t.
MOTION TO STRIKE OUT.
Then followed motion to strike ont
all the charges against Chief Pratt.
the reasons assigned being as foiiowt:
To the Board OF Fire and Police Com
missioners;
Gentlemen-Now comes Arthur Pratt,
chief OF police OF Salt Lake City, and
moves to strike out the first charge
| against him in that it Is indefinite, vague
| and uncertain and does not stale an OF
| Tense.
Second Defendant moves to strike
| out the second charge filed against him
| in that II is vague, uncertain and indeh-
| mite and does not constitute an ofiense.
| Third-Defendant moves TO strike out
| the third charge filed against him In that
| It is vague, indefinite aud uncertain and
| does not state facts sufficient to consti-
| tute mn oflense.
| Four.h-Defendan moves to strike
out the fourth charge iiled against him
| for tho same reasons as set forth in the
/ foregoing.
Fifth-Defendant moves 10 strike out
| tho fifth charge against him in that 1t
| does not state any facts at all constitute
| ing any otiense; IL docs not state
| any time or place and does not state
| when, where or how defendant has oc-
| easionei dissatisfaction against his sub
| ordinanls; the said charge is too indeti-
| Mic TO enable defendant to prepare to
| defend against tho same,
Sixih-Deiendant moves to strike out
tho FIRST supplemental charge against
him upon the Same grounds as stated In
the last paragraph.
| Seyenth--Deiendaut moves to strike
out the second supplemental charge
against ,him tupon tho Same grounds.
that the same il vague, indefinite and
| uncertain and docs not state sufficient
| facts to constitute an otfense.
Eighth-Deiendan move, to strike out
tho third supplemental charge against
him for the reason that the same Is
vague, indefinite and uncertain and does
not state what, II any, threats defendant
has made, nor TO whom they were made,
nor when they were made; 1t does not