Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-03-24
TO CURE NEPOTisM.

The following is the ordnance pdsScu
nv the Common Council with the pur-
pose of striking down the nepotic prae-
tices said 10 be common in our city SOW
eminent:
AN ORDINANCE Making 1t Unlawful
Tor a Member OF the City Council 10
Vote for ANY Person Related 10 HIM
by Blood or Marriage for Any once
Elected or Appointed by the CITY Couh-
ell, or Any Committee Thereof OF 10
Vote Upon ANY Question Conc eInlns
the Salary or Compensation O. 9ueu
officer or Employee.
re II ordained by the Council OF the
CITY Of Richmond: I. Ii shall be unlawful
Tor member of the City Council TO vote
Tor any person related TO him by plood
or marriage for any Office, elected or dp-
pointed. by the City CopQci or any com
nittee thereof. or vote upon any question
concerning the salary or compensation
OF such officer or employee.
Q All ordinances or parts OF ordinances
in conflict with this ordinance are hereby
repealed.
its passage.
Doubtless the evil complained Of exists
though statements Of its extent may be
enumerated And we are sure that the
people wish 10 see a corrective applied,
but II mo, be doubted If the proposed
measure viii stand the test OF the courts
DR. of public opinion. Nor ought it to be
adopted If II is not expected that it will
be enforced That would be the worst
sort OF triAing.
The ordinance. we think, is liable to
the objection that It creates a new quail
acation for holding office in Richmond.
50 far. at least as the offices are at
The disposal Of the City Council. 1t has
hitherto been held here that any voter IS
eligible 10 any office, but the voter who
should find himself allied by blood or
marriage with a majority of the mem
hers OF our City Council would be in
eligible 10 positions within its gift.
The ordinance Is preposterous. At first
we thought 1t was introduced in ocular
spirit. with the purpose Of calling atten-
ton to the evil in question, but it has
actually passed the Common Council!
The Board of Aldermen rejected 1t, but
committee Of conference 10 whom the
dtsagreeing votes of the two branches
were referred has reported in favor of
now should the Board do so and the
Mayor approve the ordinance, we suppose
each applicant for place within the gift
~ the city Council would have to file his
family tree along with his application
for Office. How far the family tree would
have 10 be traced back into the misty
past we cannot guess, for the ordinance
IL - CON
enlnity which will render man ineligi-
bic.
Even with an applicants family tree
in hand. a councilman would scarcely
eccl safe unless he were well acquainted
v.,ih his own family history and were
a,le 10 ascertain his relationship to the
applicant. The result might be that each
councilman would also have TO De fur
nisned with a family tree for comparison
with the applicants
an this inquiry as TO ancestry and con-
nections by marriage would give rise 10
"A great business IN genealogy No doubt
!, would cause 10 be organized here
genealogical companies that would under
take TO relieve inexpert persons from the
not always savory records OF the past
But what punishment is 10 be meteo
out 10 the councilman who deliberately
votes for his brother, or his son. or his
son.in-law? What penalty IS to be visited
upon him? The ordinance does not say
We are sorry that the Common Coun-
Ell thinks such an ordinance as this he
cessay. II does not speak well FOL
Iachmonds government. But we have nc
idea that tho ordinance VIII be sustained
by tho courts. II does not appear that
she Common Council has consulted coun-
gel In the matter. and II would take very
high legal authority TO convince The pub
lie that such legislation would stand, OF
would. could. or should be enforced
Therefore, the Common Council would
better recsde from its action than ASK
the Board TO reconsider its vote IN ih'
premises.
----r----------.---
The celebration OF the centenary 81
Emperor William l.. Of Germany. has
e.R rs