The Portland daily press., 1895-05-30
TO BREAK, NOT MAKE.
Waterville's Mayor Has Power to
Gut Parliamentary Knots.
BUT THE COURT FINDS THAT HE
CANNOT TIE THEM.

So Two Democrats Are No Longer Hun
| gering and Two Republicans Step Out
| How Mayor Knauff Voted to Make Tie
| and the Following Legal Complications.
Especial to the PRESS.
| Augusta, May 29-The justices of the
| Supreme Court have decided that when
the mayor of Waterville guessed that he
would vote to make tie, he guessed
wrong. After the election in Waterville
last March, the city government was
found to consist of Republican mayor,
10 Republican members of the City
Council and II Democratic members.
When it came to the meeting at which
the city clerk and city treasurer were to
be elected, of course the Democratic can
didates received II votes and the Republi-
can candidates 10 votes. Then Mayor
Knauff voted, making the result tie,
II to IL. AS that prevented an election,
the effect was to continue in office the
clerk and treasurer elected for the pre-
yious year Mayor Knauff's claim that
he had right to vote as he did was
based on clause in the charter stat
ingEthat the mayor is member of the
city council.
The Democratic candidates for the two
offices applied to the courts, and petit
ioned for writs of fmandamus to compel
the incumbents to get out and let them
in. The matter was heard before Judge
Whitehouse, the particular ease presented
being that OF Frank E. Brown, who
claimed to be legally elected city clerk
might be directed to step out. Hon. s.
S. Brown and Hon. Charles f. johnson
appeared for Brown, and Hon. Warren
c. Philbrook for Foster. Judge White
house decided that the mayor might vote
to break tie, but could not vote to
the petitioner Exceptions were at once
filed and as consequence last year, S
clerk and treasurer held their offices until
now The decision of the court settles
the matter, and SO tomorrow, probably,
Mr.. Brown and Mr.. Charles FL. Redington
will become clerk and treasurer
and Mr.. Foster and Treasurer Martin f.
BARTLETT will retire, the settlement of one
case, of course, ending both, as they are
Identical The matter has been a great
question in Waterville and source of
considerable amusement elsewhere. The
/ opinion OF the court was drawn by Chief
Justice Peters, who says:
| 1.-The only question sought to be settled
by this proceeding of mandamus is
whether the mayor of the City of Water
vile is entitled by the provisions of the
charter of that city (chapter 1876, private
and special laws of 1887 to vote with
the aldermen and councilmen in joint
convention in the election of subordinate
city officers, in the present case, in the
election of city clerk, beside having
casting vote in such election in case Of
a tie.
i "The case comes to us upon exceptions
to the rulings of the justice of this court
who tried the action and who decided
that the mayor had no such right as was
claimed and exercised by him, the
learned justice making at the time the
following oral observations in support of
his conclusions:''
The remarks of Judge Whitehouse
quoted by the Chief Justice are, in part,
as follows:
In determining the mayors right to
vote under these circumstances, recourse
must first be had to the city charter of
Waterville. 1t is provided in section 2
OF this act of Incorporation that the
"mayor, board of aldermen and COM
mon council, shall constitute the city
council -
Section 3 provides that the mayor
and joint meetings Of the two boards,
but shall have only a casting vote. y 1t
is further provided in the same section
that the ''city council may elect the
mayor to any city office and allow him
a reasonable compensation for services
rendered in such office, while in section
II the aldermen and common council are
declared to be ineligible to any office of
profit or emolument, the salary of which
is payable by the CITY,
The provision THAT the mayor "shall
preside in the board of aldermen and
joint meetings of the two boards, but
shall have only casting vote, is
every city charter in the state from its
early history to the present time; and
with the exception of the express men
tion of the mayor as one of those consti-
tuting the city council" of Waterville,
all OF the other provisions relating to
the point under consideration are es-
sentially the same in all other charters
as in the Waterville charter 1t has been
the obvious policy of the state to provide
in their charters for annual city elections.
and to give effect to the free voice of
the people and insure the orderly contin-
uance OF the city governments, by facill-
tat1ng rather than obstructing the an
nual election of officers and it is under
! stood to have been the uniform practice
under all these charters for the mayor to
exercise the right in joint convention to
give only a casting vote for the purpose
OF breaklg tie and not for the purpose
of making one. Such practical inter
probation, which has been accepted as
correct for nearly three -fourths of a cen
tury, is entitled to respectful considera-
tion in the decision of such question,
Continuing, Judge Peters said In
the views expressed in this statement,
we fully concur. The force Of the argu-
: ment in favor of this pretended preroga-
tive of the mayor rests in an Introductory
clause in the city charter, which declares
that the mayor, board Of aldermen and l
common council shall constitute the city
council it being further provided IN a
. subsequent section of the charter, that
: certain subordinate city officers shall be
elected by joint convention OF the clty
, council.
: "But while the first clause IN very
, general terms describes the mayor as "a
part of the city council, the meaning OF
/ that declaration is found in other and
! subsequent clauses and sections which
) define with particularly just what Par5 oi
n l., cI,n