Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-06-30
Interesting Questions.

We do not wonder that at its meeting on
FRIDAY night last the Board Of Public In
terests decided not TO take any further ac-
ton in the matter OF nominating three
suitable persons, OF whom one was TO be
elected by tho City Council Fire Commis-
.sionor from Madison Ward. The opinions
of the CITY Attorney, Mr.. COURTNEY, and
Mr.. GRrNNAv cover the whole ground. To
the contention Of the two gentlemen last
named, the City Attorney can only
Yeply that the Board of Public In
terests has never performed the duty
required Of that Board by law, seeing
that il has not nominated for IRE
Commissioner three persons Of whom the
CityCouncil may elect any one. One OF
the three the City Council has no power 10
make Fire Commissioner, he having first
bv his friend Colonel PURCELL and after
wards in an autograph letter notified the
Board Of Public Interests that he would not
servethecity in that capacity. Onthe other
hand, il is still open to Mr.. COURTNEY 20
contend that the City Council has no Off
cial notice that Dir. ELLETT viii not accept,
and that as the Board has recommended
three persons who are eligible under the
law, IL IS for the City Council 10 notify the
Board If for any reason any one of the three
cannot be or ought not TO be chosen. The
Board can then meet and select an add
tional name.
Certainly the City Council ought not 10
proceed TO elect Fire Commissioner until
1t has before it the names of three persons,
any one Of whom it could, if it chose 10 do
80, put into that Office. If one of the three
names is that Of man who has notified
tile Council that ne VIII not thus serve the
city, that body ought 10 act Just asst would
act if oil three of the men nominated were
g notify the Council that they would not
anus serve the city. In a word, the resolu-
lion adopted on Friday was a proper one.
Bat as soon as the City Council informs
the Board Of Public Interests of the facts
IN the case, il viii be the duty of the Board
20 nominate another man.
But there Is another question involved in
fhis matter. II is an old contention of
ours. 1t is the duty Of the Board of Pub
JIG Interests 90 send to tho City Council
the names Of three persons whose nomina-
itNA HAS bfNn fOANA 4DA ~ - At9 Va itAp
board To vote, orrather 10 pretend tovote,
for three men at once. Is 10 make three
votes ont of one and yet 10 contend that
len one-thirds OF votes is the same thing as
ten votes. Ii IS 20 TIE string 10 two at
least of the three so-cailed votes and draw
them back nj Will. 1t is 10 cast a vote not
in bad faith for the parties intended
no act Of bad faith. but vote
that lacks the element of good faith, or
rather has the same effect as if 1t were such
vote. II is to give 70 other persons the
night 10 neutralize your vote. Ten men,
bers Of The Board Of Public Interests were
present at the meeting on the 18th of
June. Instead Of casting ten votes they
cast thirty. But when it came TO counting
they counted as if only ten votes had )een
cast. Here is little table that proves the
justice of our contention. We do not
know the names of the ten members who
were present, but that does not matter.
We assume that the gentlemen We are
about 10 name were those who were pres
ent. II SO, they might have voted as fol-
lows: