The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-02-18

ton concerning the necessity for extra
clerks, the authority to employ them and
the right to audit. allow and approve their
claims for services rendered
1t is in evidence in this proceeding that
the Tax Collector never asked the board
to appoint petitioner an extra clerk;
that he never informed the. board Of his
appointment. and that the board did not
authorize his appointment
The petitioner relies much upon what
he claims has been the custom for many
years, in that the Tax Collector has al
ways appointed his extra clerks.
This is the first time the issue has
ever been raised between the Tax Col
lector and the board, and the Clerk of
the board testifies that the Finance Com
mittee has always been advised when
ever the necessity for extra clerks has
an understanding between heads of de
partments and the board. No doubt this
has been the custom.
Under the statutes relating to the
subject it is within the Jurisdiction of
the Board of Supervisors, in the exer-
else of sound Judgment. wise discretion
of the head officers of the. various de-
partments of the city and county gov
eminent on the one hand and the rights
of the taxpayers to have the public
funds honestly and economically expend
ed on the other hand, to appoint these
clerks and see them paid.
For these reasons alone the court can
not grant the relief demanded by petit
toner in this proceeding. Further rea-
sons which justify the court in refusing
to issue the writ are found in the reSolu-
lions and orders of the Board of Super
visorS of various dates, as follows: mo
extra clerks or employees shall hereafter
be employed in the public Offices of this
city and county from and after this date
except in cases where the services of
extra clerks or employees are on examina-
ton deemed to be absolutely necessary
for the public interest by the Finance
Committee of said board.
Resolved. That the Finance Committee
is hereby required to take no application
for extra assistance unless the same be
in writing and unless the reasons are
specifically set forth therein.
Each and every board, officer and de-
partment of the city and county govern
ment are limited in their respective ex-
penditures during each fiscal year to the
actual amount of money estimated as suf-
ficient for such board, officer or depart
ment at the time of making the annual
tax providing funds for the maintenance
of the city and county government for
the fiscal year to one-twelfth thereof each
month.
And it appears from the evidence in
this proceeding that the sum of $50, 900 was
appropriated for the expenses of the Tax
Collectors extra clerks for this fiscal
year. Of this sum $2S,250 has already been
absorbed, leaving a balance of only $3.50
for the last five months of the fiscal year,
tons of said order No. 126. The writ is
denied
AS the majority of clerks employed in
the offices of the Tax Collector, Auditor
and Assessor are what are called extra,
the decision practically deprives those
offices of patronage and throws great
opportunity into the hands of the Board
of Supervisors to pay several political
debts 1t is said that the matter will
be appealed to the Supreme Court, and
the disappointed ex-office-holders ex-
pect to reverse Judge Hebbard's decision
before the higher court.