Show POLICEMEN ARE AIM reinstated ATUD A emans lot may not be a happy one but there are eight ex members of the salt lake police force today who are in a jubilant irwood brought about by a supreme court decision handed down friday reinstates them to the positions they held last may before they were removed and furthermore entitles them to their salaries for the time they have been walking the plank the names of the officers whose breasts are again to be adorned andorne d with bro bras buttons end stars are thomas J george R raleigh richard 4 I 1 Shap matt rhodes prank frank C wire wife joseph A and horace A ar heath heats and william williamn tn fc carey carer it will be remembered that the men were remo removed ired by im action of the city council lart may aay when hen two months ea bently R itt in his own behalf as aa wolf well as of his compatriots made an apol application leation before judge cheli cherry for a writ ot of man damius diree directed the city auditor to compel him ak to draw his warrant on the tre for their sal salaries arles for the month may june july ind august am ing to J judge cherry refused to issue is suea writ or to grant any relief when t policeman appealed counsel in behalf of the deposed depo Bechn contended that the tenure of att 1 office was for the term of goor gloal havior and that therefore the sati the mayor and city council was waa ellei ille the other side insisted that the of 1897 and section of the r e statutes of 1898 gave the mayor 1 council the power to remove and andee 1 AW point successors a justice bartch who writes the epim ion discusses at some length the bearing on the question and say ferring to policemen the duties which have been imposed upon them by the laws of the 19 tate they are bound to perform antly of the corporation such dut db art being of a public nature the fact tat the appointment of such officers woo was Z 4 devolved upon the city or upon a boad J by the legislature does not deprive r of the character of public servants their appointment was so lodged bin I 1 ply as a convenient way to exer function of government they ar are A no therefore to be regarded as th the mei agents or servants of the municipally but as public or state officers court so held in royce vs salt tl city 15 utah they being such officers the i vi Slon in question quest ion does not apply appl them it doubtless do was intended 3 apply only conly to officers who are me M the servants or agents of the corporation copp oratIon it contains vo no bemp words which would make it appl to policemen in cities of the fit first 01 and we are not inclined toi to eld aid the power here contended for judicial and hold I 1 that exists by implication we have no 0 sire to extend that provision of statute to td public officers who do t come clearly its terni terms belea it confers a powe susceptible 0 of exercised to the injury of the e j pu service the power gran granted I 1 i that subdivision Is ie in its nature t e arary and despotic and is ie contrary conitha that principle of natural justice says that no person shall be condemn con unheard or without having had an to be heard and that pie courts will never disregard under the mandates manid atee bof positive when a public officer Is office justice demands that no a shall be made udom his name land and ft by removal without an 1 be heard in his defense upon chang preferred I 1 1 people vs ve mcallister 10 utah that the views view herein eap exp respecting the tenure of office of cobl mesi mem see accord ord with eiith the of f legislature legislate Leg islat ure seems also alao clear front r 1 exam of the journals of body tor for 1897 the court then quotes fronc from journal of the house of cepres tives referring to an abot in relation rela police and fire departments of catl clelaa or more inhabitants also to senate journal on a report of a col on the same bill continuing court says from these entries it may be that the bills introduced for the p pm of enacting a fire and police law to repeal the act of 1896 which la is enactment and amendment of t the 0 RZ I 1 of 1894 failed to pass JS an examination of the me which thus failed of passage will a that it provided for complete airi departments and an examination ex aminat the revised statutes as shown own incase of pratt vs swan supra rex re the fact that the same legislature defected defew ted that mea measure suTe anade mi V alons in the revised statutes to alte and maintain a fire department 1 aties of more than inhabitants ad to create and maintain a police de artmont art ment in cities of less size and in lose me provisions were included the ten re of office nowhere in the revised atutes however do we find similar yvis visions ions respecting police depart ants and tenure of office in cities of e first class it is therefore fair to ume bume that it was the intention of the tur to continue the offices of li cemen in the large cities under the pre as provided in the act of 1896 we conclude that the petitioner and bis assignors assigners assign ors under the existing laws eni entitled titled to hold their offices until awfully fully removed for cause and that e mayor and city council having at apted to remove them from office bout cause their action was il I and void the officers not having in n I lawfully awfully removed it was the duty the he respondent to draw his warrant r their salaries upon proper demand bretor er for etor and the court erred in not isling ng the writ of mandate to compel am to do so the he cause must therefore be reversed tb h costs and remanded with diorec n i to the court below to issue the H |