, 1874-08-01
THE CORPORATION COUNSEL.

It was intended that resolution should bo
introduced at the last meeting OF the Common
Council calling upon nIr. Jesse 0. Norton, the
Corporation Counsel, to resign. For some rea-
son or other tho resolution was not introduced;
but 1t is probable TINT 1t las only been post
ponod and not abandoned. Unloss 1Ir Norton
has tho dscernment to see that it is for tho best
interests Of tho city that he should retire. it is
to bo hoped tho Council will adopt auch rosou-
tion as preliminary to LIS retirement. Ho could
scarcely hold the Office after such notion It haa
become q mntter Of common notorioty that tho
Law Department Of the city il nbarmonious.
In tho diroroncos between the Corporation
Counsel and tho City Attorney no fur, Mr. Jamic-
son has been right aud Mr. Norton has boon
wrong. It Is incumbent on h1r. Norton, thoro-
fore, to givo WY.
II is tho duty OF the Corporation Counsel to
furnish legal opinions for tho guidance Of tho
Mayor, tho Common Council and the various
branches Of tile City GovornmaA. Tho opin-
ions which lIr. Norton las furnished have
| proved defective Ia 30 many instances, and at
such heavy expense, TINT tho Council Commit
toes and the departments hayo generally ap-
| pealcd to tho City Attorney for counsel. This
practice not ou1y throws too much work and re-
spousibinty upon the City Attorney, but it rom
dors tho Corporation Counaol useless append
| age, With nothing to do but draw lls $4,000
| year md provide disorgauizing element In tho
City Government. Mr.. Norton began his work
by giving some worry absurd opinions on tho
eligibility Of certain persons to certain Offices,
and ho has followed up this bad beginning with
y eorios OF remarkable and Uniform mistakes.
The most serious error he has committed YVES
| in tho advice ho gave rolatlve to tho repoal of
tho North State stroot ordinance. The case WIS
one Which a neonhyto In law might havo uu-
tleratood. It was briefly this: When tho orai-
nance for widening North Slate street was
pasaed, tl,n damages and benefits wero assessed
by Commissioners as provided by low.
AB aoon as tho condemnation proceedings
wero commenced, tho title to tho property con-
dcmncd passed to tho CITY, Tho amount Of dam-
ages was thou fixed hy appraisonont. It was gen-
orally regarded an exorbitant aud excessive. Sub
eequonty this amount was assossod pro rata
upon tho adjoining property ad1uuged to have
been bonotlted by the improvement. Tho nssess-
mont Of benefits gaye dissatisfaction in certain,
quarters. Tho Common Council asked Mr. Nor
ton whethor they could not repeal tho assogB-
n1ent and afterwards make auothor. Mr.. Norton
told tlom thoy could. 11r. Jameson told them
tbey could not Tho Council acted upon Mr
Norton's advice and repealed tho ordinance.
The case was carriod to tho courts, aud Judge
Ja,neHou decided TINT tho city did not roliove
itself Of it's liability for damagss by tho repeal ot
thfs ordinance, but that 1t had shut itsolf out
from tho collection Of tho honotltB nssossod OF
tho adjoining property. Judge Jamosou's do
oaIon will unqueationably DO sustained by tue
Supreme Court. Mr. Norton's opinion IN thit
instance has coat tho city something lite s40o 900
Wo submit that tho city can better afford tt
pay him Lie 80, 600 year not 10 give opinions
| Ar,ntnnr,ar,. 1}1a{r 1,ha ham tnbkpn a foruan