The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-09-20
EVERY CONTENTION OF THE Po-
LICE COMMISSIONERS SUSTAINED
BY DISTRICT COURT
ZIMMERMAN AID KING CASES
DECISIONS BY JUDGE KELLY AND
JUDGE LEWIS ON THE POINTS
INVOLVED
WITH NO CHARGES NO DEFENSE
If Misconduct or Neglect Is Charged.
a. Man Is Entitled to Hear
ing, Otherwise
Not

The validity of the city charter in itu
relations to the board of police of the
city OF St Paul has been fully sustain
ed.
In two decisions handed down yester-
day by Judge o. B. Lewis the conten-
tons Of Joseph King, ex-superintendent
of the police alarm, and G. A. Zimmer-
man, ex-patrolman, protesting against
their removal from office as not war
ranted by law, are fully dissolved, and
the action Of the police board sustained.
Joseph King, who was superintendent
OF the city's police patrol and telegraph
system, was relieved of Office on June Ii.
1900, by a resolution passed by the board
Of police. Zimmerman. a patrolman, re-
cetTed his discharge on the 10th of Au-
gust. shortly after the charter became
operative.
AS passed upon by Judge Lewis, the
matter came before the court on a writ
OF certiorari to compel the board of DO
lice OF the city to return to the court
the records of all their proceedings Ie.
latng to the removal of the two officials
from the service and pay of the city
Judge Lewis accompanies his decision
calling for the quashing of the writ with
long memorandum. In passing upon
the x-superintendent's contentious. ths
court said in part:
COURTS MEMORANDUM.
The relator was duly elected by the
common GO m council Of the city OF st. Paul
TO TO the office of superintendent of the po-
nee palrol telegraph system of said
city In March, 1897, and continued 10
4old qd s9ch office until the 11th day OF
y uie, 1SOUy after the taking effect OF the
new cnarter, when he was removed bv
res3G9Iutlon passed by the board of police.
Subd1vision of chapter Z in the pres
ent charter of st. Paul provides: HTha
police force of said city, in addition to
salu chief of police, until otherwise pro-
Nlded Tor by said board, shall consist Of
49, irie Otldcsrs eperen named and super
llltenoent OF police alarm and signal
system Relator was never apnojIste1
10 the office OF superintendent ff roJiaa
alarm and signal system under the new,
c1dftef, out contends that holding the
ONCE Of superintendent of the police pa-
tfOl telegraph system at the time of the
4Suoptlon 4Sp OF the new charter. by virtue of
Indt act he became superintendent of
the police alarm and signal system
winch Is admitted by all parties to he a
pooSlu0n identical with his former office.
, IN my opinion, this proceed ng should
pe quashed for the reason, first admits
tlhS Tor the purposes of argument that
the two positions referred to above are
one ana the same, and that relatOr was
a member of the police force under the
Ola system, then the reasoning in the
Geclslon in the matter of State ex rel VS.
Ine Board OF Police would control and
IN my opinion would be decisive Of fhiS
case. But aside from the two questions
raised In that case, the one at bar pre-
sentS some questions radically dffferenA
Whlch IN my opinion dispose of REALTORS
cohtentlon. These QueStiOnS7 may be
ftfonslaered cons under two phases: First at
oIle m tIne OF the adoption of the new
cn2rter, reiator held no Office under the
city OF st Paul, and. therefore cannot
cram TO nave held over when the char
Ter became effective. The police patrol
telegraph system and the office Of SUI
per1ntendent thereof which relator held
IS the creation of the common. council Of
tne city Of st. Paul by ordinance passed
~ iIl way, 1853. BY Its provisions the super
lntendent OF said system holds during
the pleasure of the common council. hy
W. WHQLl ON ne IS elected and in whom is vests
ed the power of removal
''Relator u~ges the fact that Tho 1eeis
iature In 1887 passed chapter $50 of fba
Special Laws for that wear IN witch ~
asS11ed 4eT1nnt to flX I, salary Tor The srperin-
such action On the part of the Ieg'sSa1
ture did not in law amount to such roo.
ognltlon of this office as would be Heces-
ary to create a valid office by legisiat five
enactment. The ordinance creating ths
once and the subsequent act Of the leps
lsIatuIe llt hx1ng salary for the incum-
OlStlnGf-
would be subject to repeal without af
fecting the other; and relator, at the time
OF the adoption of the new charter, an
pears to have occupied the anomalous
position of filling an office. which, under
the law, had ceased to exist. and can
therefore claim no rights as an officer
holding over at the time the new charter
Second, cOnceding for the purnose cf
argument that the office of sllpcrinteDd-
ent OF police patrol telegraph system
lIXy tod 1E
tlon OF the new Charter, there IS no pro-
vision IN the new charter previd'nv for
the holding over of the incumbent of
this office after the adoption OF the now
charter. In short, the new charter con-
tains no provision which would continue
relator in this office after the adoption
of that charter
Section g. subdivision 7 of chapter 7. re-
lating to the police department, does not
apply for two reasons: First, he was NOT
a member OF the police force and depart
having been created by ordinance: ard,
Seconq: IN any event, this Office created
ny ordnance was abolished by the adop-
ton of the new charter
Further, he is not entitled to the saving
clause In section 16 chapter % of the new
charter. providing that nothing In the
any officer or officers of said city now
acting by virtue of the laws under which
said city is incorporated, for the appar-
ent reason that REALTORS ofIlce was cre-
porating act of this city
sUsTAINs POLICE BOARD. b
In the case Of Zimmerman, the court
fully sustains the contention of the po-
lice board that it has the absolute power
of removal. and that 1t Is only In cases
of dismissal an act of punishment and
discipline that police officers enjoy the
right to hearing of the charges made
against them
The following is the text of the opinion
of Judge Lewis:
&c. A. Zimmerman. the relator, was
duly appointed patrolman and member Of
the police force in this city at the time
of and long prior to the adoption of the
new charter. On the Goth or August i9O0,
and after the new charter became opera
tive, the board of police created there
under passed a resolution removing re-
lator. togther with others. from office,
and this proceeding is brought to review
the action and power of the police board
in making such removals
"It Is conteBded that the attempted re-
moval Of relator IS without authority OF
law. This proceeding raises but ono
question: Has the board of police, un-
der the charter, the power Of removal