The San Francisco call., 1909-05-25
ROU. HIGHfRUPS:
BURNS GETS PAY
Judge Sturtevant Denies lniunc-
ton Applied for by Dummy
at Nelson's Behest
Court Rules Langdon Has Ample
Warrant to Employ Sleuth
and Assistants

Utter defeat yesterday overwhelmed
the United Railroads and its attorneys
in their attempt to enjoin the payment
of the salaries of Detective William j.
Burns and his assistant graft hunters
Judge Sturtevant decided that the sal
airy demands ARE legal charges
against San Francisco" denied the in
junction asked for and discharged the
order to show cause
This was the most recent OF the
many cases in which the United Rail-
roads have endeavored TO use the
forms of law for the protection OF
crime. Two other civil departments OF
the superior court have similar matters
pending. The petition for an injunc-
tion restraining Police Judge Deasy
from unsealing the documents hlched
from the district attorney and recov-
cred from the United Railroads by yfr-
tue of a search warrant is under sub
mission to Judge Seawell. Meanwhile
there Is in force a temporary restrain
ing order. Judge Murasky has under
submission the petition to have As
sistant District Attorney Hanley de-
clared in contempt for the part he took
IN directing the city detectives who
recovered the stolen papers from CAL
houn's Offices
The suit which Judge Sturtevant
threw out of court was brought osten-
sibly in the name of James P. Burke,
who sued as a taxpayer but who
quite frankly admitted he was but a
tool of Campbell, Metson, Drew, Oat-
man & Mckenzie. the attorneys who
represent the Calhoun corporation in
many angles OF its fight against con-
stituted authorities. All that the enc
mics of the district. attorney and his
aids t. Sns-
pone the payment of the detectives
April salaries from May l until yes
terday. The demands will be honored
as soon as the auditors office opens
today.
FULL WARRANT TO EMPLOY HELP
Judge Sturtevant in his decision
finds that Burns and his detectives are
employees of the district attorney. and
that the district attorney has ample
warrant in law to employ such help.
He cites many decisions in support of
this, among them the following rule
mentioned by the supreme court with
approval:
The rule respecting such powers is
that in addition to the powers express
~ given by statute TO an officer or a
board of officers. he or it has, by i'm
plieation. such additional powers as
are necessary for the due and efficient
exercise of the powers expressly
granted, or as may be implied from
the statute, granting the powers
The judge points out that the dis
trict attorney is by law commanded to
commence and conduct to a conclusion
civil and criminal actions. The su-
preme court in the case of Hermiston
against Schaffer said: The statute
,contempiates expense necessarily in
r4yfft
district attorney outside of the per-
formance of the duties required of him
by statute. If money has to be paid
for taking a deposition. for the service
OF an expert. or for detective work, the
statute makes 1t a charge against the
county"
NOT OFFICERS, SAYS COURT
The alternative contention of AS
sistant District Attorneys Harrison
and Cook that Burns and his men. if
not employees of the county. are officers,
is not upheld by the court Judge
Sturtevant says they are not officers
because they are not employed for any
particular period of time. their duties
are not defined by statute, and they
have no claim TO their positions ex-
cepting under the pleasure of the dis
trict attorney.
The salary demands should have been
prepared under sections 4153, Ass and
1901 of the POLITICAL code. and not
under the provisions of article XVI.
section So. of the charter. the court
holds But there is no case holding
that the payment of demand other
wise a legal charge may be enjoined
because the demand is not in proper
form or because the chrage is alleged
to be too high. These questions may
be properly decided only in an action
at law" the court states.