The San Francisco call., 1913-08-24
Decision Denies Mandate to
Compel Registrar to Ger
tify Apples Candidacy
for Coroner
FOUR YEAR TENURE
AMENDMENT UPHELD
Mayor, Supervisors and
Other Elective Heads
Under Provision


The supreme court of California yes
terday denied the application made by
sDr. Benjamin Apple for writ of man
date compelling Registrar Harry Ze-
mansky to certify and file his declara-
tion of candidacy for the Office OF cor
the city charter, which was adopted
al the fall election of 1909. clearly
and expressly provides for terms of
Office
The opinion. written by Judge Angel
lotti. and concurred in by the court
sitting in bank, holds essentially that
there is no merit in the contention
made by Apple and others that the two
amendments-7 and s--conlict, and
that the offices of city officials who
were elected in the fall of 1911 to serve
four years, will be vacant in January.
1914
MEANING Is OBVIOUS
"rhere is no conflict between amend
ments 7 and g." the court says. The
only apparent object of amendment Z
WAS to provide a different method of
election. There was no intention to
change any provision as to the term
Of Office of any officer. Amendment 2
had to do entirely with the matter of
terms of Office. and to put all ques-
tions of conflict not only with amend
ment Z, but also with other provisions
and proposed provisions of the charter,
out of the way. contained this pro-
vision, namely: The provisions of this
section shall be deemed TO be amenda-
tory of all other provisions in the char
ter relating to the terms OF officers
herein named, whether heretofore
existing or contained In sections
amended in other respects concurrently
with the adoption of this amendment
The language of that section is per-
fectIy clear and obvious
I'VE are entirely satisfied that
amendment was legally made a part
of the charter and that it constitutes
Francisco as to terms Of office of the
officers.
BOTH CONSTITUTIONAL
There Is no violation Of the con-
stitutional provisions so relied upon
in the method followed in regard
TO amendments and 8. The
meaning OF both is clear. Provisions
are made simply to authorize the
presentation for the choice OF the
electors at charter or charter amend
ment elections of an alternative arti-
Gle or proposition, i. E., an article or
proposition expressly proposed to take
the place of some other article or prop
osition that is also proposed. and II
such alternative Is adopted 1t displaces
the article or proposition for which it
was offered as substitute.
Now in so far as the provision re-
fers to the presentation of an alterna-
tive article or proposition for actual
submission, il can not be read in any
other way as being simply peruaissiye-
1t simply allows an alternative article
or proposition to be proposed in the
case of charter amendments, either by
the legislative body OF the city or by
the necessary number of electors.
PROCEEDING DISMISSED
TT is obvious that no alternative
article or proposition was here pre-
sented for submission The alternative
writ heretofore issued is discharged
and proceeding dismissed"
News Of the opinion was flashed to
all sections OF the city Immediately
after the opinion was recorded. Hun
dreds Of inquiries were received by
the clerks Of the supreme court and
general interest was manifested by To-
cal politicians and candidates.
The decision will clarity the atmos-
phepe of future meetings of the
various political organizations who
have been up a tree" when the ques-
tion OF Endorsements arose.
The city officers whose four year terms
are made secure by the decision are
those of mayor, Is supervisors, audi
tor, treasurer, assessor, tax collector,
coroner. recorder. city attorney, dis
trict attorney. public administrator,
county clerk, sheriff and four police
Judges. OF these offices the usual cleo
tion will be held for the following this
year:
Tax collector. treasurer, recorder
city attorney, public administrator two
police judges and nine supervisors.