The Marietta journal. (Marietta, Ga.) 1918-1944, 1920-04-30
COURT RULES AGAINST
DUAL OFFICIAL SALARY
Mayors Friends To Take Case
To The Supreme
Court

treasurer Of that body and actual
manager of the waterworks.
OnI a petition of Mr.. E. P.
Dobbs to Judge Blair the injunc-
ton was granted against the
Board paying the mayor salary
Of 50, 400 in addition to his salary
as mayor The board then had
hearing before the court and were
refused in the following decision
which we print in full from the re-
cords of the court, in order that
every one may be informed as to
the status of the case. The May
or's friends announce that they
will take the case to the supreme
court.
E. P. Dobbs, ct al, VS.. Board of
Lights & Water Works, ct al, Ma
rietta, Georgia.
No. 3056, March Term, 1920,
Cobb Superior Court.
The question in this case is as
to the right of the petitioners to
an injunction against the payment
of the salary fixed by the Board
of Lights and Waterworks (for
brevity's sake herein called
Board) for the Mayor of the City
of Marietta, Jim R. Brumby, Jr.,
who is defendant herein. AS
usual, there is some controversy
as to the facts, but the conten-
tons are mostly as to the law and
it's application. In applying the
law, it is we'll to note the facts
involved.
1t is not in controversy thatsthe
Board is composed of five mem
bers, that three of these are elect
ed by the Mayor and Council, that
the Mayor appoints the fourth,
and he becomes the fifth by vir-
tue of his office as Mayor. 1t will
thus be seen that the Mayor is
large factor in naming the indi-
viduals who compose the Board
He is in position to influence the
election Of three and may even
vote for them in case of a tie, he
appoints one and he is another.
Being chief executive officer of
the City and also member of the
Board, and largely responsible
for the naming Of the other mem
bers of the board, it is reasonable
to infer that he would WELD large
influence over the members of the
Board.
The question is, can the Board
thus created and influenced re-
turn the compliment to the Mayor
by electing him to any office or
position and providing him with
a handsome salary to be paid out
Of the treasury of the Board. If
so, the chief desire for being May
or might be to control the Board
by the election and appointment
of members who would serve the
personal interests Of the Mayor to
the detriment and loss Of the pub
lie. 1t is easy to see that great
evils might grow out of such a
system. n saying this, there is no
intimation expressed or implied
that the present members of the
Board have not been conscien-
tious in the discharge of their
duties, or that they have done 9TH
erwise than they thought for the
best interest of the public. Their
integrity is not involved, but the
legality Of their act in question.
The law desn't look to the hon
esty Of trustees and agents, pub
lie or private, but says to all of
them alike: eye cannot serve two
masters. :" The law does not per-
nit public officials to serve them
selves and the public in the same
matters where their intrests con-
ficts.
In this case the Mayor is paid
a salary by the City. This salary
includes compensation for all his
services as a member of the Board
it is as much his duty to serve the
City on the Board as it is to dis
charge any other function of the
Mayoralty Of the City. The tax
payers Of the City are entitled to
the best services he can render in
the discharge of all his duties on
the Board-in the selection of Of
ficers an helpers for the Board, in
the fixing of their compensation,
and in seeing that they efficiently
and honestly discharged and per-
formal their duties to the Board.
When he is before the other mem
bers Of the Board as an appli-
cant for position and large salary,