Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1904-02-18

como from his hands The law reads
thus;
Section 1. That Section 2if Of the
| Revised Statutes Of Utah 1898 II amend
| ed 10 read as follows 70 wit;
"The Mayor, by and with the advice
| and consent Of the council may appoint
| all appOIntive officers and agents that
| may be provided for by law or ordln.
| ance, and may likewise I'LL ali yaoan-
| ces among the same except az other
| wise provided by law Provided that
elective officers shall have the sole right
to appoint all their deputies and as
slstants. who shall be confirmed by the
| City Council.
Section 2 All acts or parts Of acts In
conflict With this act are hereby re-
pcaled.
Approved March 20, 1899"
II will be seen that this gives to the
Mayor the appointing power, not only
for the heads OF departments but for
their subordInates or agents. OF course
they are all subject to approval, or
otherwise, by the city Council. But the
appointment of agents or employees In
the several departments has usually
been exercised by the heads OF those de-
partments instead Of by the Mayor. As
there appears TO be a disposition to
cripple the citys executive, to block
his way and TO usurp his
authority, II viii be just as well for all
concerned to understand the law in re-
aton to these matters, and for the
Mayor to use the authority vested in
him thereby.
There Is n nice point to look at In
connection with this bestowal Of au-
thority A special provision was made
by legislation In 1893 as to subordinates
in the Police and Fire departments
The head OF each Of those departments
was authorized bS Chapter IS to ap.
point subordinates by and with the ad-
vice and consent Of the City Council
and approval Of the Mayor But the
date Of the approval Of that chapter
is March 3, 1899. The statute we have
copied above was approved March 20,
1899. In section one II amends section
ga Of the Revised Statutes Of 1898. But
section two repeats all acts or parts OF
acts In conflict with this act. Does II
not therefore repeal the parts OF the
act OF March OF the same year, which
put the appointment Of subordlnates In
the hands OF the heads OF the Police
and Fire departments?
one clause In the first section OF the
act Of March 20, may seem to save the
provision OF the act OF March which
conflicts herewith. but that Is open to
question, and the city Attorney VIII
doubtless consider il in all its bearings
The intent as well as the letter OF the
law Is Of course TO be determined, In
full and fair investigation. one thing
In this connection Is sure; city ordi-
nance that conflicts with State statute
IL void, and this also ls matter that
needs looking into,
Be that as II may. II IL clear that
the Mayor Is AUTHORIZED by the act of
March 20, 1899, TO appoint not only the
appontive officers at the heads of other
departments, but also thelI/ agents or
subordlnates. the City Council to APP
prove or dsapproye as In other cases.
1t is right for the Mayor and the coun-
ell to counsel together on such matters
and tgree II possible as to all such APP
pointmen,s, but II If not right for a
faction Of that body or the entire
council, to nominate otllcers,or to brow
beat or designate to the Mayor what he
must do or not do to placate them or
yield to their consplracies,
We suggest 10 the city Authorities not
only a close examination of the laws we
have cited, but Of all statutes bearing
upon the powers of the Mayor and city
Council, and comparison of them with
the ordinances as they have been re-
visod, no that when the bar and the
public are furnished with the complla.
ton, 1t will stand the test Of law and
chartered rights and may be regarded
as reliable.