The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-06-29
Will He Resign?


That Frederick A. Van Cleve has no right to
the position of City Solicitor must appear clear
to every sane man who has taken the trouble
to form disinterested opinion. The law on
the subject is so distinct that he who runs can
read.
BY the act of February g 1854, consolida-
ting the city of Philadelphia, it is provided
that no member of Councils, during the term
for which he shall be elected, shall "hold any
Office or employment herein created or pro-
vided for, of municipal character;' and by
act of MarcN, 1868, it is further provided that
''no member of Councils of said city shall be
eligible to any Office, employment, or agency,
directly or indirectly, chosen by Councils or
by either branch of them, during the term for
which he shall have been elected to Councils"
Now the object of such a provision is un-
mistakable. 1t is to prevent the creation OF
any new Office by vote of Councils, in order
that one of the members of their body should
hold it. 1t is to prevent citizens securing a
seat in either chamber merely to use the infu-
ence of their position to gain lucrative Office.
Now both these ends would be defeated were it
lawful for a member to vote to create an offiee
and then, by resigning, become eligible to it
himself. The same care is noticeable in the
Constitution of the United States. No mem
Der of Congress can be given an official position
during the two years of his term, the emolu
ments whereof have been increased during his
term. A Congressman can take any other
Office by resigning his seat, but he is not al
lowed for his entire term to accept of any Office
whose salary has been raised during his term.
The object in both cases is evidently the same.
Yet with these clear and undeniable facts of
law staring them in the face, six members OF
the Committee on Law held Van Cleve to be
eligible to the efice of City Solicitor. The
following is the vote of the Committee upon
the question:
For Mr.. Van CIeve, and believing him eligible
Samuel w Cattell, John L, Shoemaker, Robert
M. Evans and William Stokes. Those holding
Charles Thompson Jones, A. l.. Hodgdon, George
]. Hetzell, Alexander j. Harper, and William
E. Littleton. t-. .t.-.-r
We would like to ask those half-a-
dozen how they can possibly reconcile their
Judgment and their common sense4 We
deem that these gentlemen have made very
egregious error, one which some of them
ought to rectify. We would ask Mr.. r. M.
Evans, member who has originated nurne-
rous needed reforms, and who is the author of
several measures tending largely to promote
the public good, whether as a representative
of the people, he does not feel in duty bound
to cleanse his hands Of all this matter, by
bringing the matter once more before Councils,
and seeking to reach legal remedyP He can
| do so if he desires. He voted with the major
ity, and can move a reconsideration. II is
clearly his duty to bring the question to a
settlement, not through personal feeling but
from desire to see the law vindicated.
Under any circumstances, we are at loss to
see how Mr.. Van Cleve can retain his position
with any self-respect. We suppose he knows
enough of law TO feel sure that he is not legally
entitled to the position. 1t is clearly proper
for him to resign, and thus escape the odium of
holding an Office through evasion Of the law.
WIN he do 50, or viii he continue to hold on
until he 10 elected by the COurtsS