Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-04-01
TEE SALARIES VETO UNsoUSD.
GEO d. PYPER,
Secretary.

The veto Of the salaries ordinance by
Mayor Thompson is the subject OF
much discussion by the newspapers ana
by the public. The increase Of nay to
the fire department was recommended
by the Mayor in his message to the city
Council. It Is thought by some per-
sons that the veto IL inconsistent with
the message. The Mayor, however.
evidently feels justified in objectlng to
the ordinance because Of the legal opin-
ion rendered by the City Attorney, and
whether The veto and the message dis
agree or not, the Mayor ought not to be
expected to sign any ordinance that APP
pears to be Invalid The clty's exec
utive should be commended, rather than
blamed, for following the law and the
constitution, even though this should
involve an apparent contradiction OF his
own advice previously given.
The reasons and citations OF law pre-
scented by the city Attorney do not seem
TO us by any means conclusive. The
gentleman holds as reported. that the
act of the Legislature Of March 9TH.
1899, is invalid. 80 far as the attempt
is made to confer upon city councils the
power to increase or decrease the sala-
rles to be paid TO the police or fire de-
partment officers. during the time of
Their appointments. In support OF this
objection ne refers to section 2g5 Of the
Revised Statutes. which reads as fol-
lows.
All officers OF any city shall receive
such compensation as may be fixed by
ordnance, but the compensation OF any
OF such officers shall not be Increased
OF Diminished to take effect during the
time for which any such officer was
elected or appointed"
Continuing ON this line OF argument
he further cites the requirement of the
state Constitution that no law shah be
revised or amended by reference TO lis
title only; but the act as revised. or
section as amended. shall be re-epactad
and published at length" This pro.
vision OF the Constitution has been de.
cided by the supreme Court as re.
strictiye and mandatory in regard TO
statutory amendments.
All that looks very plausible on its
face, but it has one fatal defect and |
that Is, That the act OF the Legislature
Of 1891 does MOI purpoit to De a "ravl. |
sion or amendment" to any preyimis
statute, but is q new law which spaciGc. |
ally repeats the former provision in 70.
gard TO the salaries Of civ
officers and Therefore does No, |
come under the restrictions that |
are alleged or any mandate that has
been issued. There is nothing I'm tbe
law Of 1883. on In US tito. thar irti.
mates IN any way that &c Is IN the no.
lure OF a revision or amendment of
former statutes. ON the r0ptforv n
specifically rpeals all acts and parts ri
acts IN conflict herewith. and speriguy |
names The act % 1895 In ihp repaaIipy
clause An the arguments and quota.
lions based on che notion that the act
OF le'swas an amendatory statute. falls
fiat to the ground.
The CITY Attorney IS also little wide
of the mark in regard 10 the idea that
the officers In the police and fire de.
partments are appointed for a term or
certain time Of Office There is no such
Limitation IN their appointments: there.
fore the language OF the old law. even
though it had not been repealed. might
not apply resrictIvely On their case.
However that may be. 81 ls clear that
the provision Of the Constitution re-.
qulrine the re-enociment and publica-
tion in fun Of shy act revised or amend
ed, has no application to the law of
1929 for the reason that we have sst
forth.
What the City Council win do with
the veto remains u be seen. II there
u no other objection to the measure