The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1876-02-09

Judge Peasants, in his published opir

Inc only question: TdlSou ny eno uo
"murrer was, whether the ordinance Is
properly passed. wnetner we
'are compelled to count the Mayor In the
aggregate. two-thirds OF which are requlr-
led to overcome the veto.
Evidently the term City Council means
''the Aldermen in exclusion OF the mayor. |
There can be no question, it seems TO
me, that we are not compelled to count
the Mayor in respect to the reconsldera-
"tion of vetoed ordinance.
"His 1.-THE Mayor's) functions are essent-
Tally executive. He is member Of the
Council for some purposes, is Its presiu-
| ing officer, gives the casting vote, recon-
''mcnds measures to be adopted, and ex-
"ercises the veto power, but is not leg
''is.ator in the ordinary sense. He stands
lover against, opposed to the members OF
1.-The Council in these cases of conflict of
views between him and the members OF
''the Board of Alderman
And Mr.. Kettelle, the city attorney of
Peoria, in his opinion, published in this
paper, shows that the supreme court OF
Wisconsin also decided that the Mayor is
not to be counted After quoting from that
decision Mr.. KetteIle says: II am inclin
ed to think that the term City Council in
the mayors bill means Aldermen"
In that respect the supreme court of
Wisconsin; Judge Peasants, of our circuit
court; and Mr.. Kettelle, city attorney, of
Peoria, agree with Mr.. Gest, our city at
torney. The fact is, that the men who
write and the men who pass laws are
proverbially careless in the use Of words,
and the courts have to try and reconcile
their words with their intentions. In
fact the courts do about as much legislat-
ing as the men appointed to pass laws.
According to the technical wording
of the mayors law, votes are
necessary in our city council to over
rule the mayors veto or to reinstatc
a removed officer. But the court now hav-
ing decided that the phrase ''city council"
means aldermen" that question may
as we'll be regarded as settled.
As to whether the mayor has the right
to remove an officer who was in Office before
the passage of the mayors law, j Judge Pleas
| AUS LudhCS uO DuU NuCu III
Kettelle was asked that question he said.
''This is question l have not examined
carefully, and am not prepared to give an
opinion. If the mayors power of re-
moval is confined to every officer 80 APP
pointed, then the mayor had no power to
remove us"
Judge Peasants did not touch that ques-
ton, and as the courts have not yet legis-
= lated upon it we shall probably never
e know-for after another year all officers
l mot elective) will be so appointed, un
, less the law shall be repealed, and there
fore the question will have no practica
J, value.
| WHAT THE MAYOR SAYS
: A reporter from THE ARGUS was sen
Q to interview Mayor Davenport, this morn
d ing, and ask what he thought of judg,
II Peasants opinion, and what he iutendse
} to do. He said;
"a Judge Peasants omits to decide the mos
N important point in the case, viz: Is Mr.
r BoyntCn legally in Office? If he is he is en-
titled to his salary. If not, then thu
10 council had no right to v0tt
- him the money. In my opinion Mr.
N Boynton Is not in office and therefore III
,e more entitled to pay than any other citizen
h his term of office expired in March, an(
. he was simply holding over until he or hi
q successor should be appointed TIL,
mayors lawlwent into effect April 10th. :
a. In June the water board assumed to re
in appoint Mr.. Boynton, contrary to tn
r, mayors law, which provides that mayor
r shall have power to appoint all city officers
,s Mr.. Boynton, after his assumed appoint
II ment, did not take the oath of office; di,
y not give bonds, and was not commissioned
A. as required by law, nor was any act legal
70 performed to constitute him superinten
Il deut
" In July appointed Jacob Riley to 81
= the vacancy and notified Mr.. Boynton tina
~ his successor had been appointed. I di
" not remove BoYnton; that was not necessa
/ ry, as his term had expired and be wa
II merely holding oyer till his successo
Of should be appointed. Mr.. Riley CAV
y bonds, took the oath, and was commissioned
il as required by law. | notified the counc
of his appointment, and the council refus
" ed to confirm it, but that did not reinstat
as Boynton; that could not be done excep
n by appointment from the mayor, accordin
n to law. Mr.. Boynton was cut of offic
whether Mr. Riley was in or nol
r. From the hour that | appointed Nj
Riley until the council refused to confirr
him, there can be no question but that b
was legally in Office and Boynton legally on
rt of ofhce-there could not be two men legal
n holding the same Office at the same time
: And after the council refused to confrr
Ut Riley. Boynton being out, could not &c
ty back without be was appointed by tn
o., mayor. 1t was not necessary for th
m council to act on Boynton's removal, for b
- was not removable was out of office tn
~ moment his successor was appointed, an
lis refusing to confirm his successor did no
re reinstate him. A majority of the counc
,a assumed, illegally as think, that Boynto
- was in office, and voted him pay. The
~ had no right, in my opinion, to do so, an
er | intend to have that question decided
n Judge Peasants avoided it, but when MI
no Hawley returns | shall consult him 10 re
e gard to the matter, and shall probabl
~ take measures to ascertain whether th
l" council can thus illegally use the people
money.
he POLICE COURT.
% Before E C. Chopper, Police Magis tratt