The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-03-25

ors- The only two points IN the case
were decided in favor of Pratt, the ap-
pellant, that is, that the office of chief
of police was not abolished by the re-
vised statutes; that Pratt, under his
appointment by the board of police and
fire commissioners on Dec. 81, 1884, is
stin chief of police; that his tenure
of the office is for life, or during good
behavior, and that he is entitled TO
salary for the time he was under sus-
pension. The opinion also holds that
all the officers on the police force are
in the same position as the chief, that
is, they have a life tenure on their posi-
ticns or during good behavior.
The opinion is unanimous 1t was
written by Justice Bartch and con
CURED IN by Chief Justice Zane and
Justice Miner. Ii states the case, in
substance, that Pratt. under his APP
pointmcnt as chief of police. claimed
that he WIS entitled TO the office, and
to eBicy the eTnoluments thereof for life
or during good behavior, and was ems
titled TO the salary. $3.50 a month, for
The time he was under suspension. For
the five months ending Jan. 81, 1895, he
had not received his pay. and he asked
for writ of mandate TO compel City
Auditor Swan TO Issue him warrant
To- $50 for that period.
The defendant interposed a demurrer
to the petition, which was sustained by
the district court, and the petitioner,
refusing 10 amend the action, was dis
missed, from which ruling the appeal
was taken.
After the statement Of the case the
opinion runs as follows:
WAS THE OFFICE ABOLISHED?
Bartch, 1.-THE most important ques-
ton to be determined is whether the
office Of chief of police was abolished by
the revised statutes Of 1888.
Counsel for the appellant maintain
that there was no intention on the part
Of the legislature in enacting these
statutes, to abolish the office; that the
same is still in existence, and that the
appellant having been appointed there
to under tenure during good behavior,
is still entitled to hold the same, and
receive the emoluments thereof
The respondent contends that the law
which created the office was repealed.
ana the Office thereby abrOgated: that
the abrogation of the Office effected
removal of the appellant; and that,
therefore. he is not entitled to continue
to exercise the duties of the Office, or
receive the emoluments thereof.
The dissemination of the question thus
presented, requires a consideration of
the laws under which the office was
created, and the several provisions of
the revised statutes, including the re-
pealirg act, which have a bearing on
the case. The question necessarily in
wolves, not only the office Of the chief
OF police, but also the offices of the en-
tire police force in the cities affected by
the statute laws on this subject. These
offices. as constituted at the time of
the revision of the laws, were created
BY the act of 1894. CHI. 81, sess. laws, p.
SO, entitled AN act to appoint board
of police and fire commissioners in GER
tain cities, and to place the police and
fire departments of said cities upon
non-partisan basis" section / of which
provides: The police departments of
cities of L. 900 or more inhabitants. of
the territory shall consist of the board
hereby created. a, chief and captain of
police. and such other officers and men
as the city councils of said cities shall
direct"
The board" herein mentioned is the
board Of police and fire commissioners,
AMI was provided for in section 1. Sec
ton Z so far as material here, reads:
The chief OF police and chief engineer
of the police and fire departments shall
be appointed by the hoard of commits
sioners hereby created, and retain their
positions during good behavior, except
in the cases herein otherwise pro-
vided."
While that act was repealed. by chap
ter IS. sess laws. 1896. p. 219, its pro-
visions, and especially those above
quoted. were substantially re-enacted.
and in Pratt vs. board of police and
fire commissioners, % Utah, 3, this
court, after a review of the statutory
provisions respecting the tenure Of
office held that as the appellant there
in. who is also the appellant herein. had
been duly appointed to the office Of
CHEZ OF police, he was entitled TO hold
the same during good behavior. which
meant for life, unless it Should be other
wise provided by statute, or unless he
became guilty of such improper conduct
as would justify removal
NOT REMOVED FOR MISCONDUCT.
/ is not contended that the officer
was removed for misbehavior or i'm
proper conduct. for. although ii Is adj
rnitted that al one time charges We're
preferred against him, ii IS also adj
mitted that no hearing was ever had.
and that no removal was ever effected
bv reason Of such charges; but the
respondent insists that the laws by
virtue Of which the office was
created and the appellant APP
nninted. were repealed and su-
perseded by the provisions Of the
revised statues. and that the office was
not continued but abolished, and the {
appellant in that manner removed This /
brings US 70 a consideration of the pro- |
visions of the revised statutes apple I
able 10 this case, TO determine their I
effect upon thosesof the act Of 1894 as !
re-enacted ~ 1896, which are material /
here.
Section 2.47s. of the revision, provides /
that the revised statutes shall take eff /
feet on the first day of January, 1898.
In section 2.4S0. all prior laws of i
Utah. not excepted, are repealed.
rr~nKriTpC follows. !
"An persons who, at the time said re- /
peal shall take effect. shall hold any /
Office under the statutes hereby re- /
pealed, shall continue to hold the same |
under the tenure thereof, except those !
Offices which are abolished, and those /
as to which a different provision is !
made by the revised statutes" This /
section is, IN its terms, general and /
applies to all public officers OF the
state, including the chief of police and /
other policemen in cities, who. at the |
time the repeal too effect, held office
under the old statutes, except those
who held offices which were abolished,
OF for which a different provision was
made In looking over the revised
statutes. we are unable to find any
different provision. respecting the Of
fee of chief Of police, or such as could
be considered in lieu of those concern
ing the Office contained in the re-enact-
rlent of 1896. Nor have we been cited
TO any such different provision. The
same may be said OF policemen gener-
ally Of the cities of the class to which
Salt Lake City belongs.
THE VITAL QUESTION.
The vital question. under section
2. 4S2 therefore is, was the office abol-
ished? If so. its abrogation must have
been accomplished by the general re-