The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-07-03
Court Sustains His Action in
Discharging Policemen.
Civil Service Board Has No
Jurisdiction in Matter.
PATROLMEN CITY OFFICERS
Not Employees of Municipality,
Holds Judge WhitcOmb.
Refuses to Allow PeremptOry
WritS of MandamuS.

Mayor r. l. Cofran is sustained in
his discharge of the five policemen. The
term of office of police officers of the
city of Topeka expires with the term of
Office of the board appointing them.
Such was the decision filed by Judge
George H. Whitcomb with the clerk OF
the district court this afternoon. Tie
decision is the final step in the contrC-
versy between the civil service board
and the city commission, which result
ed in five writs of mandamuS being
filed against the mayor a few weeks
ago Unless the discharged officers ap-
peal the case to the supreme court, the
controversy is over.
One OF Mayor Cofrans first public
acts was the dismissal of Otto Ander-
son, Rufus Frazier. o. F. Haney, Dan
Garden and w. H. Wilt. They were dis
charged without cause. They objected
They appealed to the civil service board.
The mayor was directed to reinstaUe
them within "a hours. Nothing Wds
done. Next morning five wrlts of man
damus were neatly laid on the mayor S
desk.
Mr.. Cofran appeared at the court
house on Monday, June %, with City
Attorney Ralston and John j. SchenCk-
Charges were brought against Frazier
to show that he was unfit for the police
force. Mr. Scnenck moved to quash
the mandamuS on the ground that 1t
action because it was brought againS :.
Mr.. Cofran as an individual, instead
of against the mayor and commission.
The mayor and his four assistants have
equal power in making appointments On
the police force. Mr.. Schenck also de-
cIared the provision of the civil service
law unconstitutional.
Judge Whitcomb took the case under
Amusement. The document filed with
the clerk this morning is entitled De
cision of Question of Law Under Sec
ton 27S of the Civil Code"
Crux of the Matter.
The crux of the matter rested in the
query: Is policeman an officer of the
city or an employee of the city? Is
policeman an appointive officer under
Section 1904 of the General Statutes of
1909 whose term of office expires with
that of the board appointing him, or
does he hold a position covered by civil
service law applicable to cities of tho
first class. from which he can be re-
moved only in the manner prescribed
by law?
The discharged officers based their
demand for reinstatement upon the
case of the mayor of Kansas City
against civil service appOintee, a case
recently decided in the supreme court
in favor of the plaintiff. The dis
charged employee was a field man, a
subordinate, working under the super
vision of the health department.
Policemen. on the other hand, are
public officers.
1T is apparent" said Judge Whit
comb, that a field man of the depart
ment of health of the city of Kansas
City occupies quite a different posi-
ton from that of a police officer of that
or any other first class city
Position of Police Officer.
Judge Whitcomb declares. in addi-
ton, that a police officer holds a posi-
ton within the meaning of Section 2 of
Article Is of the constitution, which
forbids the creation of any office the |
term of which is longer than four
years.
The concluding parag graph of the de-
cision follows:
THE record can be made up in this |
and similar pending cases so that the |
rights of the several plaintiffs will be |
protected if appeal shall be taken but |
the rule of law which will be held to |
govern in this court will be that the |
terms of office of police officers of the |
city of Topeka expire with the term |
of the board. appointing them. 1t fol- !
lows that a peremptory writ cannot be |
allowed