Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1861-10-16

The Corporation Attorne y Brad
ley has replied in brief but conclusive terms
70 the four-column Review which Alderman
Moore with paternal eomplacency gave space to
In the Lntslhgsaesr the other day, In answer to
the self proposed question a" Has the city legal
Mayor" After exposing In caustic style some Of
amateur lawyer In critcizIng his (Mr. Bradley's)
legal opinion, lr. b. proceeds as follows:
al will not permit myself to be drawn into any
discussion Of the principles Of my opinion which
the reviewer was either Incapable Of comp-e-
bending or has chosen TO evsde Personally ]
feel very little interest In the matter and this 10
neither the mode nor forum for such discussion.
But, II certainly is Of interest TO the public to
know whether we have a Mavor or not, will
state briefly and distinctly the process BY which
have arrived st the result, that we have Mayor.
A" removal" by the Mayor from the city, by
che terms Of the charter, produces vacancy
In the oface-a q Temporary absence' does not
Mr.. Berrst, being Mayor, was removed ibid
not voluntarily removed from the city by superior
force. This Of itsef did not necessarily produce
vacancy; but, Is he did not depute the
President of the Board Of Aldermen to act Ia his
place, 10 may have been a question whether Il
was TO be temporary absence.
The Councils In their journal Of the joint meet
ing, state that "vaeaney" has been produced by
the arrest and rsnordl from the city Of the lafs
Mayor Il do not give the whole quotation, }
ana proceed to elect Mayor Pro ,smPors, undo,
in assuming that, under the circumstances, his
removal from the city produced vacancy, they
could only elect 'for the remainder Of his term y
Therefore they did. so far as they could, elect
Mr.. wallach for the remainder Of the term, and
thereby exhausted their power.
do not think they were right in this assump-
ton.
The question now 10, was that act void, or only
voidable' and, IL voidable only, by whom and
how could u be avoided?
NY opinion Is their act was not void but was
voidabls only, and that Mr. Berret alone could
make Il void IL Mr.. Berret had returned and
claimed the once, as he might lawfully have
done, ne would thereby have put an end to and
avoided Mr. Wallsch's tenure Of office from that
time.
II Nj. Berret had continued absent during the
remainder Of his term, that election not being
void, but vOdable only, Mr.. Wallach necessarily
would have remained in Office during the whole
time.
Mr. Berret did not return to resume bis ONCE,
but being still absent from the city, resigned;
that 10, did an act which rendered him inca pable
Of avoiding that voidable election. He cannot
reclaim the Office No one doubts that IL the
so Is gone past recovery ] do not think any ac-
ceptance Is necessary to make IL irrevecable
These are the substance Of the views embodied
In my opinion. have neither heard nor read
anything which tends to shake them. They are
at leas. Ineligible and distinct
But, as this Is question Of public interest
which cannot be settled in this mode, venture to
suggest to the author Of the review and his SYM
pathiZers that there Is a remedy for the evils they
pretend 10 disclose and 1t is their duty to seek re-
dress In the Court, IL they shall do so, have no
pride Of opinion TO interpoSe whenever the public
good is concerned, and IL will give me pleasure
In every mode in my power to facilitate and ex-
pedite that remedy. Jos. II BRADLEY,
Attorney for Corporation.