The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1902-10-26
THIRD WARD ALDERMAN
Steiner Will Insist Upon Ac-
ceptance of Resignation.
Lawyers Contend That Montgomery
Charter Provides No oficial Can
Act in Dual Capacity-Ques-
ton Of Eligibility.


next regular meeting, to be held Monday
night of next week, will consider the res
tgnation Of Major Robert E. Steiner, as
City Attorney 1t is under stood that the
resignation will be accepted and it is
reported that Alderman Ray Rushton
will be elected to the place.
The resignation of Major Steiner, 1t will
be remembered, was due to oppositioan
to the laying of tracks on Dexter Avenue
by the Montgomery Traction Company.
Major Steiner is one ( the attorneys for
the Traction Company. and when the
matter was agftated, he sent his resigna-
ton to the City Council, declaring that
his opinion was 50 well grounded that
he thought some other lawyer should be
selected as City Attorney.
The Council received the resignation Of
Major Steiner at a special meeting
Thursday and deferred action upon it
until the next regular meeting.
1t has been reported on the streets of
Montgomery and at the City Hall that
the Council would refuse to accept the
resignation of Major Steiner Yesterday,
however 1t was learned definitely that
Major Steiner had insisted upon the ac-
ceptance OF his resiy alton, and that Al
derman Ray Rushton was an applicant
for the place. Moreover. 1t was said that
a majority of the Aldermen had pledged
themselves to support Mr.. Rushton.
Mr.. Rushton admitted that he was an
applicant for the place, and said that so
far as he was informed. Hon. Bibb Graves
was the only other applicant.
The names Of Messrs. Alex Troy and
r. L. Harmon were mentioned by several
business men as available candidates, but
they have not authorized the use of their
names In this connection.
II Mr.. Rushton goes out of the Coun-
ell to become City Attorney, he will be
the second Alderman elected by the res
emit Council to fill salaried position. Mr..
p r.. Mulcahy, it will be remembered,
was chosen as Alderman to represent
Ward l at the last city election. At the
first meeting of the Council Mr.. Muleahy
resigned and Immediately became City
Inspector of Plumbing. Mr.. J. D. Farley
was elected by the Council as Alderman
from Ward 1 to succeed Mr.. Mulcahy.
Should Mr.. Rushton, who represents
Ward in the Council, retire from that
body to become-City Attorney by the
votes of his associates. the Council would
elect an Alderman to represent citizens
of that ward.
In view of the recent discussion of the
Office of City Attorney it is interesting
to know that H is an open question II
the City Attorney or any other official OF
the city can legally act as agent or at
torney of a corporation using a franchise
in Montgomery.
Section SO of the City Charter under
which the municipal government is now
operating. expressly provides that this
condition cannot lawfully exist. The i'm
preston prevails that this section of the
Charter was repealed by the Legislature
of Is96-1S97, but lawyers disagree in this
opinion.
The section of the Charter of 1928
prohibiting city officials from occupying
dual positions is as follows:
Section 50. Be II further enacted, That
no officer, agent employe or attorney of
any corporation having a contract with
or franchise from the City Council OF
Montgomery shall be eligible to the office
of Mayor, Alderman or any office or any
employment in said city government, but
this section shall not AFFECT the right of
any person now in Office to serve out his
present term"
Alderman Rushton said yesterday that
this section of the Charter was repealed
by the Acts of 1S96-'97 because it prohib-
ited a great many citizens from holding
Office who were in every way qualified
TO do so honorably.
Other Montgomery lawyers disagree
with Alderman Rushton in the statement
that Section 50 of the Charter was re-
yesterday pointed out that several sec
tions of the Charter were repealed by the
Legislature of 1s96-'97, but declared that
Section So was not. He said Section 81
was included in the caption of the act re-
pealing certain sections Of the Montgom-
cry charter. but he called attention to
the fact that absolutely nothing was said
about Section 50 in the body Of the re-
pealing act.
THE title or caption of an act" said
this lawyer, lis no part of the .enacting
clause. Its purpose is to give notice of
what the body contains or should con-
tain. Whether advertently or inadvert-
emily, it is plain that Section SO was not
included in the repeating act. and it is
now the law" ...
In substantiation OF his opinion this
lawyer called attention to the fact that
the Constitution of the State expressly
provides that the subject matter of an
act shall be contained in the caption.
II 1t should be definitely ascertained
that Section 80 of the City Charter has
not been repealed. the eligibility of ap-
plicants for City Attorney may be more
carefully considered than has been
thought necessary heretofore.
HhiclrapS Turkavs-auarvtbSp ;n