The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-05-16
BURNS ASKS TO Be
PARTY TO TIL, SUIT
Motion to Include Special
Agent in Application for In-
junction to Shut OFF Pay
Hearing of Action Brought by
CaIhOun's Tax Payer Will
Be Resumed Tuesday

William J. Burns, special agent OF
the district attorneys Office. appeared
yesterday. through his lawyers, As
sistant District Attorneys William
Hon Cook and Robert W. Harrison, in
the suit brought by the Calhoun in
spired tax payer" James P. Burke, to
enioin Auditor Roster from honoring
the salary demands OF Burns and his
assistants. After an hours argument
the case was continued until Tuesday
morning for further consideration
Burns was not made a party IN the
application for an injunction originally
brought by Tax Payer Burke but
when the case came up for argument
before Judge Sturtevant yesterday
morning on a motion TO show cause
why & temporary injunction should not
issue Cook, as amicus curiae. asked
leave 10 file a motion on benaII OF
Burns to have the restraining ORDER
now existent, dissolved
COULD HAVE BROUGHT MANDAMUS
Judge Sturtevant thought that
Burns motion was in the form or a
general appearance in the action, but
Cook declared that il was not he
said that Burns could have brought
man "a Us pEOGtG4lnSc d50AAAs7N 49,
auditor but out eff Difference TO the
court that would not be done.
Attorney }. A. Mackenzie Of the firm
sf Campbell Nelson. Drew, Mackenzie
& Oatman. who was spokesman Tor
Burke while MetsOn sat by in silent
contempls ton Of the case. suggested
that an amended complaint might be
entered including the name OF Burns
He spoke Of the manual labor that
would be required in preparing papers
including Burns and his % assistant
special agents. whose salaries are also
tied ND by the agent Of Calhoun, who
would fix it so that his boss and his
boss gumshoe men could slip along
uninterrupted by the vigilance OF the
gents OF the district attorney.
Judge Sturtevant ruled that as the
proceedings were in equity and he
could NOT give any decision until every
party was represented, he let the mo-
tion Of Burns stand as submitted
Mackenzie then started mis- argument,
being interrupted willingly from time
TO time 10 meet q point presented by
Cook Mackenzie's main reliance was
on the allegation that the charter does
not give the district attorney power
TO engage extra help, save Of a certain
limited kind.
COOK SCORES 4 POINT
COOK met TINS argument {. W1tl "A JOLT.
You claim. he said. that the general
law q California does not give TO the
district attorney Of san Francisco the
same power to secure assistance that
is given to the district attorneys of
other countless"
Mackenzie explained that the point
he meant was that the police depart
ment members We're the special agents
Of the district attorney. He insisted
that under the charter the district at
rOrney is entitled TO appoint certain as
sistants none Of whom is designated as
special agent and that the charter
provides that additional assistance may
be secured. This additional assistance
the lawyer for the fastidious tax pay
er, Burke insisted. must be Of the same
class as the enumerated assistants.
You can not add peaches and cows
and get an aggregate" he illustrated
with bucOlic fervor
Major +. Y. Keesling, attorney for
the auditor, appeared in court, but took
no part in the action.
The suit brought by Burke was to
restrain and enjoin the auditor from
paying out Of a $4,000 special appro-
priation for the conduct Of the graft
prosecution the salary Of Burns. which
is 1925 a month, and those Of his %
assistants at $3.50 a month The pro-
ceedings were on a motion for a tenn
porary injunction, although the sal
aries are now tied up on a temporary
restraining order. The hearing on the
motion TO grant temporary Injunction
should bring out the merits of the case.