Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-03-24

presumed to have intended an absurd
thing"
Referring to chapter 9, section 2l3 of
the revised statutes for 1873, and es-
pecially to sections 245, 246 and 24S, the
court says!
''Thus It will be seen that in the re-
vised statutes there IL ample pro-
vision to create and maintain lire de-
partment In the large cities, to create
and maintain police force in the small
cities. and according to respondents
theory. provisions defining the powers
and prescribing the duties of the chief
OF police. and other public officers In
large cities, with their Offices abro-
gated. 1t Is not clear that such a con-
tention leads to an absurdity. Would
the able counsel, who argued this case.
sriously undertake to maintain that the
Legislature intended to protect the
peace and good order of small commu-
mites, to guard against the ravages Of
fire In large cities, and,at the same time.
to ignore the peace and welfare, the
lives and property OF the populnus
cities, leaving them to the evil propen-
stiles of the criminal classs Who are
wont to infest such clties2
mo such design can or win be I'M
puted to coordinate branch of the
government Nor are there any circum-
stances in this case which would war
rant such imputation. Again, why de-
of an ofticcr whose office has been abol-
isheG2 Counsel say, because the city
council has power To create the Office
by virtue Of section PA. c. 6. which pro-
vdes: The mayor, by and with the adj
vice and consent of the council, may
appoint all such officers and agents as
may be provided for by ordinance, and
In like manner. I'LL all vacancies among
the same, except as otherwise pro-
vded by law This doubtless was in.
tended to confer power to appoint such
minor officers and agents as might be-
come necessary, from time to time. in
the municipal government. and the nee
essity for whose services might arise.
and the emergency which might call for
their appointment the Legislature, ow-
ing to the narrow limits OF the
human mind, were unable to foresee.
or, II may he that this general pro-
vision was enacted, because of the
imposslbility of the Legislature enter
ing into immensely of detail. The pro-
vision, 1t will be observed, leaves the
appointment of such officers and
agents discretionary with the mayor.
He may appoint or not as he chooses.
So the council may provide for APP
pointment or not. or confirm or not, as
II chooses Thus, IL respondents con-
tention be true, officers of the most
populous cities OF the State, which but
few years ago, under the most SOL
ffflH luukHltnt VI tine ltBlSlltlNe
branch of the government, were re-
garded as OF such grave Importance
as to impel the enactment of a statute
whereby the incumbents were appoint
ed under life tenure, so as to secure
more efficient service by removing
them ms far as possible from political
and other improper Influences, have
now came to be regarded, by the same
branch of the government, to he OF 80
little Importance az to permit the ere
alton and continuance of the officers
and the appointment of the incum-
bents TO stand on mere implication, and
be subject to mere pleasure within or
partisan zeal OF a mayor or city coun-
ell. In other words the legitimate
result o: the insistence is that the
Legislature intended by the revision
and repeal, to commit the peace and
welfare, the protection of lives and
property of the largest communities
In the state to mere discretion of the
mayor and council, acting jointly. and
either one having the power to defeat
the VIII OF the other; and this too In
the face of the fact that for compare
lively small communities. the same
Legislature made ample provision for
peace officers. Could an interpreta-
tion of the several statutes, which
would produce such results. and i'm
pute such Intention, be regarded as
warranted, or reasonable, especially
when the reaA object of the revision is
considered"
After further argument of the case
and citing numerous authorities, the
court finds that the office of chief of
police was not abolished, but continued
In existence under the revision. and
that Arthur Pratt not having been re-
moved, IL entitled to hold the same as
provided In section EASE of the revised
statutes
The conclusion thus reached the court
holds Ia In accordance with the general
principle OF law, well established and
that I'm the absence of any restrictive
provision of statute, municipal officers
hold over. until their Successors are
elected and qualified"
On the question as to whether Pratt
is entitled to the emoiuments of the
office during the time of his suspension
the court says;
Thus during all the time from the
14th OF July, 1897, to the LIST of Janu-
airy. 1898, the officer remained sus-
pended by order OF the board and there
after in effect, suspended, by the re-
Of