The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-06-07

SHOULD BE MADE ILLEGAL.

The report of the special investigating com
,nittee relative TO the conduct of Messrs. Pol
lock and Wise. charged with improper practice
in connection with the repeal of a city ordinance
was that which was expected, and which it would
seem was the only report which could have been
made consistently with all the evidence.
The CeuncilmeE involved received pay fo-
services as attorneys 10 special construc-
-4ien of city ordinance by the head Of city de-
partment, the object being to practically nullity
the intent Of the ordinance as passed by tie body
of which they were mernbSs. The evidence
shows that they exerted 10 Influence to secufe
and did not vote on the question of the subsc-
aueilt repeal BY the council Of the ordinance IN
solved They were thus technically gull'!css
of the violation of any statute and the committee
had necessarily, TO 80 find.
i he committee, however, properly did uot-s stop
a the finding, which was in the nature Of vcr-
dict b. jury. They we're more than lury,
members of the governing board of the city and
affected with notice OF q condition of the law and
an example III practice tending TO exert per
nicious influence city government. They
therefore followed their findings with the recon-
mendation of an ordinance making illegal In the
future the character OF act which. Ill the instance
under Investigation, legal for the want of a
law making it otherwise. 1t would seem that,
bv making this recommendation. the committee
merely discharged its full duty.
Although not employed to their official
positions directly in the interest of their clients,
the whole matter of the relationship of the two
Councilmen 10 the city was inextricably en-
tangled and involved in that employment, that the
ethics of their service. became to say the least
mixed question The head of the department
before whom they appeared as the holders of fees
was responsible 70 the board of which they were
members The ordinance which they accepted
fee TO have made lenient in enforcement was
: one which emanated from the governing body Of
which they were a part. They We're thus in a
way charged with the responsibility for, and con
cerned in the enforcement of the very ordinance
which they accepted pay to practically abrogate
And. as We have before pointed ont, when the
question of the repeal of the ordinance came be
fore the Council, they themselves realized tina
their connection with it attorneys had been sucl
as to- render il improper for them to vote a
Councimen to do in the most speedy and di
rect way that which they had been employed Il
accomplish in an indirect way.
80 That circumstances such as these could be pro
duced by perfectly legal action gives strong EN-
phasis 10 the need that what was done legally b
made illegal. We do NOT see that Messrs. Pol
lock and Wise are thereby preiudiccd criti
cized. The "attack"if attack there be-i.
against the system, rather than the men. Inite
States Senators and Congressman have gone t
the penitentiary for identical action. Stat
statutes make il msdemeanor for Council
man even to sell to the city he represents. Whe
twithout offensive comparison) a Counclma
sells himself against the enforcement Of act dc
clared in part by himself, the is hundec
fold stronger upon every consideration q
natural and legal ethics.
Objection has been suggested that ord
nance forbidding Councimep TO appear in ma
ters in which the city Is directly or indirectly II
terested would result in tho reductto Gd al
surdam of preventing lawyer appearing for
client charged with crime. That is matter O
detail which may be readily made clear by
amendment Oh special provision. But in this rf
spect there i distinction which ought to b
borne in mind: Defense of one charged with tn
violation Of city ordinance is much ditferen
proposition from seeking to prevent the charge Q
It's violation being laid The part of attorne
for the defense is not to attack the law, if lega
but 10 show that his client has not invaded its il
hibitiens. It is vastly different thing to re
that d MN charged with crime is tried under th
law, and TO secure immunity from the law for
man engaged in its violation.
The whole matter Of Messrs. Pollock and Wis
is simply comparatively trivial incident call
ing attention to neglect in civic legislation in
yiting to more gross abuses.
The breach discovered IN the law should b
stopped without more ado
4 THE RAILROADS "KNUCKLE UNDER
BY reaching an agreement with President
Taft. whereby they withdraw the proposed in