New-York tribune., 1901-11-09
VAN WYCK CAN'T ACT.
Low WILL HAVE APPOINTMENT OF
JEROAIE'S SUCCESSOR ON JANUARY 1.
DECISION IN THE CASE OF COLONEL e T.
WOOD CITED AS PRECEDENT-A
BLOW TO TAafMANY

Certain Tammany lawyers thought yesterday
that they had discovered a kink in the laws
that would prevent Seth Low from appointing a
successor to William Travers Jerome as Justice
of the Court of Special Sessions Under the
Public Officers act. they said. Jerome must
qualify as District Attorney before January I
by taking the oath of office. Even if he did not
resign the office of Justice of the Court of Spe-
cial Sessions before taking the oath of Office
District Attorney, the legal ''sharps'' said. he
would become District Attorney a midnight
December 81. and at the same moment cease to
be Justice of the Court of Special Sessions. be-
cause he could not hold two offices at the sans
time.
Under the charter Tammanyites said Seth
Low would not become Mayor until noon
January 1, when he took the oath of office and
Mayor Van Wyck. therefore would have the
power to appoint Justice Jerome's successor
any time between midnight of December 81 and
noon of January 1. 1t limited that Mayor
Van Wyck would not hesitate TO use his power
Mayor the morning OF January l. and 1t
was said that he might preserve his jewel OF
consistency by appointing Henry w Unger to
the office of Justice of the Court of Special Ses-
sions. keeping up his record for making unfit
appointments.
Another case which the Tammany lawyers
rick ]. Ready, of the Court of Special Sessions
in Brooklyn. Mr. Ready appointed by
Mayor Van Wyck for provisional term. which
expires December 81 midnight His sue
cessor is to be appointed for full term OF ten
years. The appointment of a successor to Jus
tice Jerome would be until July 1, 1908. Brook
lyn politicians have been talking of recommend
ing Jacob Brenner for the appointment to sue
ceed Justice Ready but it said by some Of
the Tammany lawyers yesterday that Justics
Ready might be reapponted by Mayor Van
WyCk on the morning OF January l.
1t will perhaps. be shocking to certain Tam
many legal lights TO recall a decision of the
courts in the case of Colonel E. T. Wood who
appointed to the office of Corporation Coun-
sci the morning of January ]. 1885, In
frantic effort to prevent Mayor William r. Grace
from reappointing E Henry Lacombe TO that
office. a prominent jurist said to a Tribune re-
porter yesterday that the decision in the case
of Colonel Wood would apply exactly 70 the
case of any appointed by Mayor Van Wyck
on the morning of January i next because the
charter provision regarding the Mayors taking
the oath of office at on January 1 was the
same the provision of law in force at the time
Mayor Grace sworn into office
Mayor Franklin Edsons term Of office expired
on December 81, 1884, and on the evening OF that
day he left the City Hall with the understanding
that William P Kirk. the President of the Board
of Aldermen, should be acting Mayor until noon
the following day The Following morning MT
Kirk had himself sworn In as Mayor Tor a rev
hours. and he then appointed Colonel T. T
Wood. Mr.. Edson's brother-in-law, as Corpora
ton Counsel Colonel Wood took an oath OF Of
fee, and went to the office of the Corporation
Counsel to demand possession of it. Corporation
/ Counsel Laconbe refused TO admit ColoneI
Wood. and secured injunction restraining
him from performing any of the duties OF Cor
poration Counsel Mayor Grace took the oath
Of office at noon on January l. 1888. Fourteen
days later he appointed Mr. Lacombe to the
office of Corporation Counsel The case or COLO
mel Wood was carried up to the Court or Ap-
peaIs and ii decided that his appointment
he dacjSi 0T
was that the Mayor. although not taking the
oath Of office until noon actually became Mayor
on the morning Of January /. and that 1t was
the intent OF the law that he was the only Mayor
with power to make appointments 70 ONCE on
that day.
'If Mayor Van Wyck should make any ap-
rointnent to office the morning OF January
l." said the judge already referred 70, Ine
courts would set such appointments aside as IL,
legal on the basis of the decision in the WOOD
case One can be sure, too that the courts
would feel bound in any case 20 sustain the m
tent of the law that the Mayor who takes ONCE
on January l is the only Mayor clothed with
power on that day to make appointments 10