Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-03-24
AND ENTITLED TO THE SALARY.
Proceedings that Have Kept Him Out Have
Been Unlawful.
lHE CONTEST is FINALLY DETERMINED.


The Supreme Court handed down an
opinion today in the case Of Arthur
fat'' appellant. VS. George Swan. city
auditor, reversing the cuse and remand
ing the cause with directions to the
lower court to grant the writ of man.
date as prayed for. The court holds
that the Office of chief Of police was not
abolished and that Pratt, not having
been lawfully removed, is entitled to
mold the same and receive the salary
of the office.
Pratt made a demand of Swan for
warrant in payment of five months
back salary due him as chief of police.
"A refusal on the part of the auditor
caused the chief to make application
for writ of mandate to compel him 10
issue the warrant. The petition was
presented before Judge Cherry and the
defendant interposed "A demurrer which
the court sustained. Pratt refused to
amend when the petition was dismissed
The case was then appealed to the
Supreme Court and arguments were
made March l2th.
The court finds that the most import.
ant question to be determined ia
whether the office Of chief of police was
abolished by the revised statutes.
Judge Powers, who appeared for the
chief contended that there was no in
tention ON the part of the Legislature.
in enacting these statutes to abolish
the office; that the same was still in
existence and that Pratt having been
appointed therto under tenure dur
ing good behavior was still entitled to
hold the office and draw the salary
therefor.
City Attorney Hail. however insist
ed that the law which created the
office had been repealed and the office
therefore abrogated. that the abroga-
ton of the office removed the chief
and that he was not therefore entitled
to exercise the duties of the Office, or
receive its emoluments.
The determination of the question.
the court finds, requires u consideration
OF the laws under which the Office was
created and the several provisions OF
the revised Statutes Including the re-
pealing act which the court holds has
bearing on the case The court also
finds that the question not only in
wolves the office OF chief of police but
also the entire police force in the cities
affected by the statutes.
These offices. the court says. were
created by the act OF 1894, chap. 81.
session laws. page 80. and We're for the
police and fire departments on a nom
partisan basis.
while that act" says the court.
"was repealed by chap. ~, session laws,
its provisions were substantially re-
enacted"
The court then cites the case of Pratt
VS. board OF police and fire commits
sioners, which reviews the statutory
provisions respecting the tenure OF
Office and holding that Pratt was en-
titled to hold the same during good be-
havlor, which meant for life, unless 1t
should be otherwise provided by stat
ute, or unless he became guilty of i'm
proper conduct such as would justify
removal.
1T is not commended" says the court.
that the officer was removed for mis-
behavior or improper conduct for. al
though 1t is admitted that one time
charges were preferred against him.
1t was also admitted that no hearing
was ever had. and that no removal was
ever effected by reason of such charges
but the respondent insists that the
laws, by virtue of which the Office was
created and the appellant appointed.
were repealed and superseded by the
rvised stateutes, and that the office was
not continued but abolished. and the
appellant in that manner removed.
The court then considers the pro-
visions of the revised statutes applica-
BILE to the case at bar in order to de-
termine their effect upon those of the
act OF 1894. as re-enacted in 1896.
In the general plan of revision" 1t
says there was no design to absolute
ly repeal all the statutes of the State.
Nor will court ASSUME. because OF the
clause, that In such plan
there was an intention to abolish offices
necessary to the public good, or to re-
move the incumbents thereof. The evil
dent design in the plan of revision was
to continue in force the great body or
the statutes, with some notifications
and amendments, as well as to continue
in existence the officers necessary in the
execution OF the laws, under the revised
statutes The object, doubtless, was
not to abrogute, or change the law to
any great extent, or To abolish offices
or remove incumbents, but to reconcile
enaCtments and dis
to remove doubts and weed
out supernuOus matter.to give the sane
ton OF positive law to rules which had
previously been promulgated and stood
alone on the authority OF usage, de-
tluction and judicial decision, and to
render all enactments OF statute law
more concise. clear, accurate and prac-
teal"
statutes. in practical operation and
eject. must he regarded, by the
courts, in constituting the revised
statutes and acts of amendment and
repcnl as continued and modified
rather than as abrogated and new
ones enacted. although, in terms, all
were repealed,
saws The court: 1.-THE intent of the
legislature must prevail, even though
to the literal sense of the
.erms, and control the strict letter OF
he repeating statute, and where a
particular construction. which appears
20 be included within the terms, would
cad to absurd consequences, the court
will. out OF respect to the Legislature.
ldopt some other construction whicl.
will avoid such consequences. II from
he whole purview II may fairly be
lone. The Legislature can never be