The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-11-30
ARE STILL BAILIFFS
SUPREME COURT DECIDES IN FA-
VOR OF PARRISH AND
ADAMS
QUESTION OF SCOPE OF POWER
Held That Police Commissions Au-
thOrity Is Not Exclusive-Mu-
nicipaI Court Judges
Must Approve.

lifts of the police court the st. Paul ponce
commission must have the approval Or
the judges of that court before such ac-
ton is operative, or, in other words, the
commission, in it's authority over the
bailiffs Of the court, have only such pow
ers as were formerly vested in the may
or Such is the decision of the supreme
court in affirmation of the judgment of
tho Ramsey County district court in the
case Of Edwin NJ Parrish, respondent,
VS.. The City OF st. Paul. appellant; ]. ..
Adams. respondent, VS.. The City of st.
Paul, appellant.
: The respondents, Parrish and Adams,
We're removed from their positions as
bailiffs Aug. s, 1850, by act Of the police
commission, and r. A. Vance and j. A.
Loomis were appointed in their places.
The two judges of the municipal court,
Grier M. Orr and Robert c. Hine, refused
to concur in the action of the commits
sion, and for the purpose of testing the
powers of the police commission under
the charter Parrish and Adams brought
suit to recover their salaries for the
month of August, 1900, amounting to $40
each. Under this ruling, as the judges OF
the municipal court have not concurred
in the removal of Parrish and Adams,
they are still bailiffs of the court and en-
titled to collect their salaries from the
time of their so-called removal by the
The court in a decision written by
Justice Lewis, in the case of the City Of
Duluth, appellant, VS.. The Duluth Tele-
phone Company, holds that the company
in accepting a franchise granted by the
city, and installing It's telephone lines,
had acquired vested rights which cannot
be revoked by the city except in the ex-
ercise of it's police powers This decision
is affirmative of the judgment of the dis
trict court Of St. Louis county. Following
are the syllabi in the cases mentioned
and others in which decisions were hand
ed down yesterday:
Edwin NJ Parrish respondent, VS.. City
of st. Paul, appellant, ]. Q. Adams,
respondent, VS.. City OF st. Paul, ap-
pellant.
Where no tenure Of an Office is fixed by
law and no provision is made for the re-
moval of the incumbent the. power of re-
moval Is necessary incident to the
power of appointment
But where in such a case, the power
of appointment to an dice is vested in
by another office or official body, the in
cumbent may be removed by the ap-
pointment of his successor, but such APP
pointment does not take effect until 1t is
bent is entitled to discharge the duties
of the office and receive the salary there
for.
Rules applied in the construction of
the city of st. Paul Of policemen, ap,
proved by the judges of the municipal
court, for special attendance and duty
of appointing and removing such police
men or bailiffs was not exclusively vest
ed in the mayor, but In him and the
judges of the court, the act of both being
essential.
The provision of the city charter plac-
ing the police department in the control
of the police board in no manner changes
the prior law as to the appointment of
such bailiffs, except to devolve upon the
board the powers and duties in that re-
spect exercised by the mayor Orders af-
frmed. Start, Z. j.
City of Duluth, appellant, vs.. Duluth
Telephone Company, respondent. !
The Duluth Telephone Company was
eral Laws 1878, before section 2S, chapter
"a, General Laws 1866, was amended by
chapter 49, General Laws 1881.
By a special act approved March Z,
1881, the exclusive right was conferred
upon the company to erect it's poles and
wires upon the streets of the city for the
period of ten years, which right was eX-
tended for the further period of ten
years by a special act approved April l3,
1899.
Commencing in 1882, under the author
ity of both the general and special acts,
the company constructed it's telephone
system within the city and has since
maintained and continued to extend the
same therein.
The time granted under the special acts
having expired on Nov. 20, 1898, under the
provisions of chapter "a, General Laws
1898, the common council offered to sell
a franchise to construct telephone SyS-
tenn within the city upon certain condi-
tons, and defendant having refused to
submit bid, the franchise was granted
to another company, which thereupon
constructed a telephone system which it
+ ,cipo 90, 14nt,, al
On Feb. 13, 1900, the city council passed
a resolution requiring defendant, on or
before April l, 1890, to remove it's poles
and wires from the streets, avenues and
refusal to comply with the order, the
city commenced an action to enjoin de-
PENDANT from further extending its sys-
tenn and to compel the removal of the
poles and wires already erected
Held. That chapter 2S, General Statutes
1866, as amended by chapter 70, General
Statutes 1881 Chapter 2641, General
Statutes 1890, authorized defendant to
enter upon the streets and alleys of the
city and erect its poles and wires there.
in, subject only to the police power of
the city to control and regulate the
same.
The company having established its
plant in reliance upon the provisions of
the general law Chapter 2641, General
Statutes 1884, such action on it's part.
constituted an acceptance of the right
or privilege thus granted, and it's occu-
pancy of the streets thus acquired, in,
Guiding the right to extend it's system
within the city as occasion might require.
became fixed in the nature of vested
rights which cannot be revoked by the
city except within the. exercise Of it's
police power.
N. W. Telephone Exchange Company
vs. Minneapolis, 81 Mimi, 14O.
Judgment affirmed Lewis r
john q. MCGEE, appellant, VS.. The Board