The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-12-16
THE CITY MAYORALTY QUESTION.

As there seems to be Misrepresentation
on the part of some people concerning the
circumstances which led to the election of
Mr.. George W. Hall to the mayoralty by
the city council. it may not be amiss to
review the situation.
Mayor White, on November 80. wrote
letter TO the city council, in which he said,
81 hereby tender my resignation, to take
effect at once" He stated afterward in
an interview that he did not anticipate
it would be acted upon Immediately.
Matters of importance are by rule of the
city council held over for weeks consid-
Grafton. The two houses went into joint
session and without the faintest authority
of law accepted the resignation. The
members of the council in that joint ses-
sion had no more authority to accept the
mayors resignation than the Pan-Angli-
can synod would have had.
When Mr.. White wrote ~ tender my
resignation" he held it out for accept
ance; under well-established rule of COM
mon law--and Mr.. White had a competent
legal adviser-that 1.-The resignation of an
Office does not take effect until acceptance
or something equivalent"
Chief Justice Brewer. of the United
States supreme court. in his decision in
the famous Chapman case (American Re-
ports, vol. Kill, p. 41s), reafiirmed this as
fundamental principle of American juris-
prudence. The probate judge of Barton
county, Kansas, had forwarded an uncon-
ditional resignation, and it was accepted
by the governor to take effect "upon the
appointment and qualification of your
successor; those being the terms upon
which he had been elected to the Office.
"Now, it is claimed by plaintiff" says
Justice Brewer, "that Judge Chapman's
resignation took effect October 3, because
upon that day an absolute and uncon-
ditional resignation was by him trans
mitted to the governor, the officer entitled
to receive it; and this upon the theory that
the incumbent of a public office has an
absolute right to lay aside its duties and
resign the office ct any time, and that no
acceptance of such resignation is neces-
sary. Plaintiff further contends that if
ton was complete and took effect on Oc-
tober s, the day it was received and &C
knowledged by the governor.
'On the other hand, it is contended by
the defendant that acceptance or some
thing equivalent thereto, is necessary to
perfect resignation; that party who has
once accepted an Office and entered upon
its duties has not the absolute right at his
own pleasure 10 abandon its duties and
resign the office; that the public are inter-
ested as well as the individual incumbent;
and that as acceptance or its equivalent is
necessary to perfect 4 resignation (when
the acceptance specifies the time at which
resignation is not complete" The court
sustained this view of the case.
Judge Ruffin. of North Carolina. in re-
ported decision, says: "An officer may
certainly resign, but without acceptance
his resignation is nothing, and he remains
in Office"
Another reason why the mayor of Seat
tie should not be permitted TO abandon his
office is that he is required by the charter
to give S25 900 bonds for the faithful dis
charge OF his duties. If he could, Of his
own act, by resigning, at once release his
bondsmen what would be the use of hav-
ing the bonds?
The city council, without duly consider
ing the legal procedure, attempted to ac-
cept the resignation in Joint session. They
were advised next day that this was an
error, and that the resignation could only
be accepted by joint resolution, passed
with the formalities prescribed. by each of
the two houses IN separate session. TWAS
too important matter 10 allow of any
opening for dispute. and the council very
properly sought competent legal advice as
10 their duty. They were advised that the
resignation could not take effect until a
successor was elected and qualified.
Assured of their legal position they then
considered the question Of public policy.
Should they meet az once on Monday
night and accept the resignation, or should
they wait two days longer, and, by bring
ing the vacancy within the ninety DAYS
limit, save the city the expense and an
noyance OF q special election?
What was TO be gained by special cleo
ton? 1t could not be held until the first
or second week in February, within four
weeks Of the general election. This was
so clearly violation OF the intention of
the charter, which manifestly desired 70
spare the taxpayers the expense of two
elections within ninety days. that only
perverse and pettifogging Interpretation of
the law would sdmi; of it. The city coun-
ell wisely resolved. with only one dissent
Ing vote, not TO pe-petrate such an out
rage on the taxpayers; they waited two
days and elected 10 FIJI the vacancy
man whose integrity was beyond oues-
ton, but who, also, by the intent OF the
Charter Mas r,-ssi2nnt 81 H.