The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1876-04-03
Signs of Returning Reason.

Our New Caesar organ lntlmates that
its master has become convinced that he
is not entitled TO two votes in making Off |
GERS; that to appoint man to Office and
then confirm the appointment by his own
vote is not confirming the appointment
by and with the consent of the council,
but is doing it by and with nobody's con-
sent but Our New Caesars, and that such
course is not only immodest and in bad
taste, but is monstrous usurpation of au-
thority never assumed by any .previous
mayor of Rock Island The organ of Our
New Caesar says, IF there is any bubble
upon which bis Our New Cesar'sl oppo-
nents can hang the pretense of argument or
assumption of advantage this may lead
him Our New Caesar to withdraw that
casting vote" The proposition to with
draw vote, after it has been cast and de-
clared,is worthy of the gigantic brain which
conceived the idea that confirming his own
appointment by his own vote was comply
ing with the law which requires the ap-
pointment to be confirmed by and uith
the consent of the council" Our New
Caesar may treat the proceeding as null
ity, an illegal and unwarranted act, and
then proceed to nominate Mr. Cooke, and
if Mr.. G. does not receive the votes of six
aldermen, then Our New Caesar can re-
appoint him, and continue to reappoint
hi M as often as may be necessary to keep
him, in office. The law gives him that
power.
Judge Peasants has decided that the
| mayor can not be counted as forming
part of the city council under the mayor s
law. He said:
There can be no question, it seems to me, that
We are not compelled, &c ri teTmiRi, to count the
Mayor in this provision in respect to the reconsider
| alton OF vetoed ordinance.
| 1t seems TO me that the reasonable construction
of the particular provs on here involved inc{inet
| he mind 10 the conclusion that where the term
city Council is used it excludes the Mayor.
The course of reasoning and illustration
used by Judge Peasants, covering nearly
two columns, shows clearly that in the
matter Of confirming appointments or dis,
approving of removals, as in the case of a
vetoed ordinance, "the mayor stands over
against, opposed to the members of the
between him and the members of the
board of aldermen" He has the appoint
ing or removing power and is required Il
submit his action, under this law, to the
council, and confirmation, in the words
of the law, must be ''by and 10Th the CON
sent of the council" not by and with the
consent of the mayor alone. That would
not be a confirmation. Was Mr.. Cooke
confirmed By the consent Of the ouncil!
Nobody claims that Was he confirmed
a0tth the consent Of the counci12 No,-be
cause, las Judge Peasants decidedly THE
reasonable construction Of the particular
provision here involved inclines the min(
to the conclusion that when the term Cit!
Council is used 1t excludes the Mayor"
For the mayor to make an appointment
and submit it to the council for consent,
and for the council to refuse to give it
consent, II e. be equally divided-ant
then for the mayor, by his vote, to con
firm his own appointment, certainly is nc
confirming it "by and aoith the consent o
the council, unless Our New Caesar i
the whole council, and the aldermen coun
for nothing. He must have their consent
or the consent Of majority of the Who'll
number. Does he get it when there is
tic? No. They express no opinion-giv
NJ consent.
: 1t Is clearly usurpation of power 70
Our New Ce ar to confirm his own ar
pointmeuts 10y voting on them in the cour
!, Gil. They can only be confirmed, Their,
by the consent of majority Of all tn
aldermel,t to be recorded by yeas acd nas'
If Our New Caesar will carefully stud
the opinions of Judge Peasants and {
Judge Cochrane, and conform his actio
thereto, he will thus give evidence that ii
law and not his dictatorial will shall be h
rule and guide.