Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-04-27
Is He Chief
Or Is He Not?
Question Of Whether Geosge A. Sheets is Head of he Sail
Lake Police Department VM Soon be Settled Whole
Case Before HE Supreme Court Today-Lengihy
Anqunents Heard on Boih Sides

shall be In the public interest. Rule Il
Is a rule adopted in accordance with
that statute. The rule says that a ma
Jtrity vote Of all members elected shall
he necessary for the confirmation Of an
appointment, and that rule is certainly
In public interest, because a c0nlirma-
ton Is Of such Importance that II re-
qures the more deliberate consideration
Of a majority of all the members OF the
council. There are three things neces-
sary to the creation of the liability In
this case. First. the passage Of the
ordinance creating the office, second
the fixing Of the salary; and third the
appointment and confirmation Of q chief
of police. Hence the appointment and
confirmation In this case is absolute
ly necessary to create the liability
against the city
RICHARDS STATEMENT
Atty. f. S. Richards then made the
closing argument In behalf Of the state,
He said IN part. In regard TO rule u
OF the council, II is certainly not in
conflict with the statutes. The statutes
provide that the council may pass rules
regulating its action This rule regu-
lates the manner in which the council
shall give its consent to all appoint
ments by the mayor. 1t provides that
eight members shall be necessary to
confirm an appointment II Is clearly
within the meaning Of the statutes.
insist also that the statute, without the
rule requires the majority vote of the
entire council to confirm an appoint
ment."
The attorney cited a large number
OF authorities to support his contention,
1T would be most pernicious thing
for this court TO iudlclally sanction the
proceedings In this case, Here Is a
rule Of the council, passed by the unani-
nous vote of the council and approved
BY the mayor requiring ma
jurity vote to confirm an appoint
ment The members of the council
relied upon that rule, Two Of them
were absent on the night in question
and the appointment was submitted ana
voted upon seven voting for It ana
six against II. The president announced
that the confirmation had failed ana
there was no appeal from the decision
of the chair. At the next meeting the
minutes in regard to that matter were
approved and ratified by the council
without any question whatever In the
face Of all this the defendant comes in
here and asks the court to sanction this
matter
CONFIRMATION CREATES,
Nov in regard to the question Of
liability, / contend that the contirma-
ton of an officer creates the citys ia
bility for his salary. suppose there was
no chief of police for a year would the
counsel say that the city was liable for
any salary? Most certainly not. Mr.
Nye says that the captain Of police is
entitled TO the salary of chief. Who
would receive the captains salary
would he be entitled to both the sal
airy Of chief and his own saiaryT we
think not. Mr. Nye did not know
where he would get of when he MADE
that statement. There can certainly
be no question but that the liability
is created by the appointment ana con-
firmation OF person to receive the sal
airy provided In the ordinance
Ii seems clear to US that the Judgment
Of custer prayed for in the complaint
should be entered against the defend
ant. for the following reasons;
First--Because, when given fair and
rational Interpretation, the word
council" as used in section 2li Of the
revised statutes, providing for the APP
pointment OF officers by the mayor,
by and with the advice and consent OF
the council" means a majority Of the
members elected, and therefore eight
votes were required for confirmation
when the defendant only received seven.
Second Because under the pro-
visions OF section 1893, and paragraph
SO OF section 206 which provides that
the city council shall have full power to
determine its own rules Of procedure
and. pass all ordinances and rules and
make all regulations, not repugnant to
law, necessary for carrying into effect
or discharging all powers and duties
by the statute, the council
had power to make rule IL, requiring
eight votes for the confirmation Of an
officer. and that rule was as binding
upon the council, and had the same
force and effect as a statute.
Thlrd-Because the confirmation OF
an officer creates a liability against the
city for his salary, there heing no la
bfity to pay the salary until there is a
legal incumbent IN the office 10 draw IT,
and. as the statute expressly requires
the concurrence OF majority OF the
members elected" 10 create any Habit
ity against the city, It necessarily fol-
lows that the defendant was never
legally confirmed. and therefore, he
should be excluded from the office.
We respectfully sumbit that in view
Of the facts and the law governing this
case. there can he no reasonable doubt |
that the defendant was not legally |
confirmed by the council. His appoint !
nent by the mayor did not receive "the |
advice and consent Of the council" 1t |
would be doing violence TO reason 10 |
assume that while requiring confirma- |
lion By the council, the Legislature In |
tended 20 permit five members. or one |
third OF the council. to exercise that i'm
oortant power. yet. this would he the |
result. n the contention Of the defense |
& upheld Such conclusion would not |
,nly be contrary TO law. ard against |
public policy. hut antagonistic to the
settled procedure of the council during |
long series Of years. We cannot be-
1--we that the court win give the seal
II its sanction 10 q proposition which
& SO shocking 90 every sense Of jus
Ice. and so inconsistent with the rights
II the people.
LOOFBoUROw CLOSES,
Judge G. = Iocfbourow closed the ar
In behalf OF the defendant.
He read from a large number Of au-
horities 10 support the argument adj
,anced by Mr. Straup and city Attor-
icy Nye and applied them 10 the pres.
mt case and the questions Involved
herein At the conclusion OF his ar
yument IN case was submitted to the
'ourt.
,assed the house on third reading to-