Show MAYORS CAN APPOINT SUPREME COURT COTTET UPHOLDS THE territorial LAW the case involving the city of ogden decided in favor of Ir enderson judgment affirmed the sapiente court yesterday handed down an opinion n affirming the abe validity of 0 tile fair autho authorizing riving mayors SIa iora or cities to appoint subordinate off leers the case was wag that of 0 R it whipple against it if II 11 henderson involving the right to the office ot of city attorney ot of ogden the plaintiff wo was s appointed to the ollace ott on tho thet lith day ot of january qualified iHl and entered upon the discharge of 0 its duties on tho the next day and continued to discharge them until tho defendant wag appointed qualified commissioned and ana took possession on tho the nth day of 0 january ISM under tile iho territorial law the plaintiffs term I 1 have expired ore orb the ath day of oc that month but the territorial government I 1 ent N nas as superseded superceded super luperce ceded led by the state 0 oc f utah on tho the ath day of tile earna month the plaintiff claims tho the billea under section 10 article 21 24 of 0 tho thet constitution of this state alz ilz iz all AH civil and military now holding their offices annj appointments in this territory by authority of law shall continue to hot hold and exercise their respective offices and appointments until super superseded superceded ceded under this constitution plaintiff insists that thai tho the phrase su per merceded ceded under this constitution means by a successor elected by the electors of the city under a law enacted by the Legh legislature Maturo ot of the state the defendant in effect insists that ho he was appointed and holds auder a law of the state made so by section 3 of the same ait article icle az alz all laws of tho the territory of 0 utah now in for force co n not 0 t repugnant to this constitution shall balt remain in force until they expire by their own limit limitation ution or are altered or le ie pealed by the hie legislature this section continued lit force under tho the state such teri laws as were not repugnant to it and thereby mado made them state laws and offices defined in them existed thereafter by state a authority lul such adoption pave gave them the 0 effect they alln y would have had bad had they been enacted by the legislature of the state but it Is 19 argued that the provisions of the TerrI territorial tortal law authorizing r the mayor with tho the consent of tho the council t to appoint the city attorney was repugnant to section 9 artl article 4 of tho the constitution viz ball all general at elections except tor for municipal anil and school officers shall be hold held on oil tile tuesday next following the first mon jay flay of november of the abo year in M v aich tile tho election is held special elections may bo be held as provided by law the terms term of all officers elected at any general at election shall commence on oil tile the first 4 monday in fit january next following tho the dito date of their election municipal and school cera shall be elected nt fit sue buch if time os as may be provided by law the court then makes tile the point that this does not mean mean that all officers oll leers are to bo be elected by tho the people avid and quotes from rom the constitution to show that some offices are elective slid and others appointive poin tive tivo concluding as follows wo we are of the opinion thit that the law authorizing the mayor of the city of ogden to its city attorney to Is not repugnant to section 9 of tho the constitution ution above quoted therefore the mayor was authorized to appoint tho the defendant to that collict and the appointment P Is valid chief justice zane wrote the op opinion lolon a and na justices burtch Bart cli anil and miner miller concurred AGAINST TUB RAILROAD the court also handed down an opinion in the case of the central railroad company vs va hyrum standing tax collector of box ulder eider county it appears from the record that the hie county and probity court sitting its as a board of equalization laifed the assessment on certain of the com banys property pro propel ty and the col collector lecter attempted to enforce the payment of the additional taxes the company took tile ground that the board had no jurisdiction to raise the assessment because no written complaint was hied or any co copy py served on oil it and began injunction proceedings against the collector to prevent him from selling the property the injunction was dented denied and the company appealed the supreme preme court holds that a wi itten complaint compla litt was not necessary aud ana that reasonable notice was given the company hence the judgment of the lower court was affirmed justice bartch x arote rote the opinion and chief zane and justice minor miner concurred |