Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1899-06-09
THE ONE-MAN POWER
Philosopher of the Union Tells
Why Mayor Should
Rule.
THE COUNCIL HAS NO RIGHTS.

cord With the Executive's-Hence He
the Aldermen Guess Differently.
The Union apparently goes on the
theory that because the mayor of
20 k Island may act unreasonably and
n bitrarily without committing a
crime that he has a perfect right to do
so, and that regardless OF how mani
testify unfair and presumptuous his
conduct may be toward the council,
the aldermen should under no cir
cumstances resent his attitude toward
them, but go right along coun-
tenancing his behavior and pay
ing the bills he contracts in usurp-
ing the authority of both branches
of the government. In other words,
the oracle would have the aldermen,
whom it has been so complimentary
toward in its language of late. accept
its grandmotherly advice as to how
they should govern themselves in
their intercourse with the lord-high-
everything, and if he insists in placing
in office men whom the council has
refused to confirm. ignoring not
only the councils right to dis
sent from this selection, but
refusing to sustain the ilimsy
charges made against the men whom
he has removed without charge. then
the council should nevertheless grin
and bear it and graciously pay the
salaries of the one-man rule appoin-
tees, which even the mayor has
not had the nerve to put in the
payroll vet. The aldermen are adj
vised by the paper which changes its
philosophy to suit circum stances that
they may have the privilege of acting
upon certain matters if they choose,
and if it is agreeable to the mayor
their action will stand, but if not, he
will set it aside and do just as he in
tended to anyway; that beyond this
the council cannot go. In other
words the council exercises a privi-
lege, not an authority, the binding
and effective force of its acts on GER
tain matters depending entirely upon
how far it is in accord with the hui
NOR of the mayor. but in those other
things. such as the voting of money,
in which the power is vested en-
tirely with the council, it, re-
gardless of how the mayor conducts
the exercise of hi, prerogatives toward
the council, should discharge it's duty
in manner wholly to his liking.
Above all things, it should not EN-
barrass him by declining to pay the
men of his special choosing in the
running of the municipal machinery.
This is all as the Union would have it.
Council Should Stand Firm.
Under such circum stances, the coun-
ell, in duty to itself and to the people
who elect the aldermen to represent
them in one branch of the city gov
eminent ust as they elect the mayor
TO represent them in another, can do
but one thing, and that is to refuse
to countenance the payment of bills
which 1T has not contracted, no
matter by whom authorized, and to
refuse to recognize any employee of
the city not confirmed by it, where
the ordinance defines that such en-
ploye's official existence can only
come with the advice and consent of
the council.
Neither the ordinance which defines
the rights of the council with refer
ence to the appointing power. nor the
statutes of the state upon which the
ordinance is founded, contemplated
that the mayor should be vested with
absolute power at any time or under
any circumstances where the major
ity of the council had declined to con-
firm his appointments.
Apart from the fact that the course
pursued is contrary to reason and the
intent of the statutes which delegated
to the council its duties and defined
its powers, the moral obligation that
-
with the council in all things looking
to the city's best interests should
have suggested to the executive line
of policy other than the one he has
adopted.
The mayor has evinced no DISPOSE
ton to meet the council in a spirit of
friendliness or fairness. After failing
to treat with the council in any re-
spect as far as his appointments are
concerned, and after the council had
disapproved of his appointments I'M
der such circumstances. he disre-
parded the action of the council by
Installing his appointees anyway, and
then made a mockery of the law,
which requires that he file charges
against those whom he removes from
Office, by filing lot of charges which,
while presumably in good faith. as
the law contemplates. he indicated no
disposition to substantiate. In fact
he manifested a spirit of the utmost
indifference as to whether the charges
were just or not. And yet the Union
says the mayor has been courteous
with the council Courtesy. as the word
is generally understood, carries with
it proper conception, if not recogni-
ton. of the rights of others Neither
of these has the mayor shown
IL the mayor is inclined to be half
as anxious as the Union would have
it appear that the relations between
the two branches of the municipal
government become tranquil. let him
.,.rnt H. -, e f01ncil In,