The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-07-03
The case Of che Interloper.

THE six members of the Committee on Law
who voted to keep Frederick A. Van Cleve in
the position of Assistant City Solicitor, have
published their report. In it they seek to
justify their decision, but fail most utterly to
grasp the law, as well as the equity, which ap-
plies to the case. The substance of all this
lengthy document is found in the following
paragraph
at would seem unjust to assume that the
LEGISLATURE meant To dIsqualify a citizen from
holding or accepting Office under the city after
whether the term for which he had been electe
had expired or not Mr.. Van Cleve had been a
Councilman, and resigned his office and when
he received his appointment at the hands of the
City Solicitor was merely private citizen And
a citizen from holding Office for year, they
may do so for lie; aud this power, so much IN
derogation OF private rights, is surely not given
TO the Legislature by the Constitution, which
nowhere declares that o citizen shall not have
The right to hold office, but limits the power OF
the Legislature merely TO declare what offices
are Incompatible"
We are at a loss to see the injustice to
which the six refer. If candidate for Coun-
ellis knows that he cannot hold any municipal
Office when he accepts an election, surely it is
no injustice to enforce the law. He knew
the consequences and was willing to abide by
them. 1t is to be supposed when he took his
seat that he intended to hold it. If he did so
in good faith, then he should himself be un-
willing to desert the seat to which he was
elected, and to betray the constituency
who have honored him with their choice. To
him such privation is no hardship; while if
the member desired to get his seat in
Councils only in order to use it as
stepping-stone to some more lucra-
tive position, the law is necessary to pre-
vent the contamination of such disgraceful
scheme. We think, therefore, that it is per-
feOtly just. But, again, the six have failed to
see the equity of the law. In expounding any
ordinance, it is proper to ask the reason why it
was passed by the Lawmakers. Why then,
was the ordinance forbidding any Councilman
holding any municipal Office during the term
for which he was elected, passed It was
clearly to prevent the creation of Office by
Councils in order to give it to any member.
1t was to leave all Councilmen unbiased by
the hope of personal preferment, and it
was also to prevent men seeking seat in
Councils, as Van Cleve has done, in order to
get the friendship of his fellow members, and
thus secure some Office through the use of his
official influence. 1t was, in fact to prevent
personal ambition influencing members, by
making them ineligible to any Office under the
control of the bodies to which they were
elected. Now this object would be utterly
nullifed, were it lawful to let member accept
an Office as soon as he resigns his seat. He
could vote against worthy officer, as Van
Cleve did, and secure his defeat, in
order that he might gain the place for him
self; or he might vote one hour to create an
Office and, by resigning, secure that Office for
himself an hour later. If such an interpre-
tation could be placed on the law, all the good
designed to be done by it would be cancelled.
The law is so plain, that all we have to do is
to follow the Constitution, which says:-
mo member of Councils OF said city shall be
eligible to any office, employment, or agency,
directly or Indirectly chosen by Councils, or
either branch OF them, during the time for lOhich
| he shall haze been elected TO Councils"
| Mr.. Van Cleve was elected for the term of
three years, and is consequently ineligible to
any such Office as Assistant City Solicitor
until the three years from the date of his cleo
ton have elapsed. Under these circumstances,
we ask him once more, viii he act the part of
man, and resign the place to which he has
gained admission only as an interloperS
|
] The EXTRAORDINARY ATTACK on Judge Fisher