Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1904-03-01
THE CONFLICT GOES ON.

The sooner the courts settle the ques-
ton OF the power TO make appoint
ments in this municipality, the better 1t
will be for all parties concerned. The
City Council. az its Monday evening
session, failed to accomplish anything In
that direction. The ordinance intro
duced by MIR. Hartenstein was voted
down, and resolution introduced by
way OF retaliation by Mr.. Black failed
TO receive sufficient votes to pass II.
The rejected ordinance, as we have
already pointed out needed some
amendments. II appeared to give the
Mayor authority as to appointments
and discharges IN excess OF that which
the statutes authorize In other re-
spects II was necessary measure. be-
cause. as matters now stand, the le-
sality Of the positions held by a large
number OF appointees is gravely In
doubt. The Objectionable clauses OF
the ordinance could easily have been
amended. but no opportunity was given
for debate, as by strong partisan vote
the enacting clause was stricken out
IN obedience to the debating power that
runs the faction which is continually
urged TO stand pat" and to act as a
partisan combination irrespective OF
the needs OF the municipality
The resolution offered as a means Of
baking the Mayor" In the exercise OF
his official rights and duties, barely es-
capped adoption. II would nave been
merely an obstruction II II had passed,
as no resolution or ordinance will stand
IN the way OF statutory provision.
II was devised simply to obey orders,
which are, to resist every effort OF the
Mayor TO change the city officers and
employees and "balk" him when pos
sible.
The law Is very plain In this matter
THE Mayor, by and with the advice and
consent OF the City Council may ap-
point all appolntive officers and agents
that may be provided by law or or
diranco, and in like manner MI all va
caneies among the same"--Laws OF 1899,
p. l2l. That Is the provision In ques-
ton. With II Is the provision, that the
Mayor, with the concurrence OF the
City Council may remove appointlve
officers. Revised Statutes, Sec. 2l5.
Endcavors to deprive the City Coun.
ell OF Its lawfnl powers as to appoint.
ments and removals In conjunction
with the Mayor, and to "balk" and IRE.
slst" the Mayor In the discharge OF his
duties as TO appointments and remov-
ais, are equally wrong and TO be con.
demned. Let every official DO supported
IN his lawful acts, and held UP 10 pub.
lie reprobation In unlawful dolngs and
distractions,
The Mayor OF this city is
authorized by law to make an
polntments. They are to be con.
firmed or otherwise by the city
Council But the council has been ana
Ia advised by a factional organ, not
only to balk and resist him, but to tell
him what he may do and what he may
not do. In backing the obstructive
clique OF the council It says, 1T offered
a more than fair division Of the offices
10 the Mayor" The brazen lmpudence
OF the POSITION The council may re-
fuse TO confirm the Mayors appoint.
ments, but II has no right to offer"
him anything OF the kind. And tho
Mayor, be II remembered, has the power
and the right to refuse to sign payrolls
for persons Illegally appointed.
The complete summersault which the
organ OF, the faction--not OF any party
has taken on this question, Is but one
OF It's symnastlc exhibitions OF
ground but not lofty" tumbling. For
about four years, II claimed In effect
that the Mayor was everything and
the council nothing Now It assumes
that the majority OF the council is the
directing, appointing and supreme
power, and the Mayor is to submit to
everything that faction deiyns to "of.
fer"
The proper course to pursue Ia 10
concede to every city Official that which
the law confers upon him. Let the
Mayor exercise his official powers, and
the City Council do that which lis mem.