The Washington times., 1913-09-19
THE STAR AND THE LAW.

The Star has got itself curousy muddled in its
discussion of the law concerning de facto officials
Several days ago it announced that it knew about
Supreme Court decisions that would invalidate ar
assessment in which Edward w. Oyster should par
tcipate. The Corporation Counses office asked the
Star to cite the cases, but the Star declined Then
The Times pointed out that the Star was acting
curiously like counsel for the petitioner in eftcr
to invadate the assessment and leave the town with
out revenue That fetched our contemporary. II
had put its foot into bad mess by reading all
the civil service employees out of citizenship in Wash
ington and now it was getting in the position OF
suppressing information that public officials needed
in order to protect the public interest.
So the Star decided to tell its great secret II
whispered, low and tremulously, the titles of the two
cases in which the Supreme Court had held that all
assessment by a de facto assessor was not valid.
Both we're from Arkansas, and NEITHER HAD ANY
POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIP OR PERTINENCE
TO THE ISSUE IN RE OYSTER.
Arkansas has law under which the sheriff
assessor in the sale of land for taxes That
law states very specifically that he shall take his
oath of office by January 10 before the county clerk
If he fail in this, the law says his office shall be
vacant the governor shall be notified and shall fill
the vacancy.
tax sales in Arkansas attacked in two instances,
on the ground that this oath was not taken. The
facts were so proved and the Supreme Court simply
held that the pretended officials officials
at ALL their acts were not the acts of assessors either
de jure or de facto; and tax deeds they issued
utterly invalid
Those cases, it will be observed, have nothing on
earth to do with the issues raised in Washington.
Oyster has been appointed and is acting assessor.
There is no doubt about his de facto capacity. He
has taken the oath and prescribed with every form
stipulated.
And under the long line of decisions concerning
the acts Of de acto officers, his acts perfectly
legal.
We strongly suspect, from the appealing tone
with which the Star announced that it will not enter
into argument as to the meaning of these de-
cisons, that it knew they failed utterly to sustain
its position But it had bluffed had been called, and
had to show its cards 1t did the best possible, which
was mighty bad.
The Star evidently needs some little lessons in
the law, and we shall now show it one. The Star is
devoting itself to show that Mr. Kabus is the legal
assessor yet 1t is that everything would be
legal and right if he still in office; but every
thing is going 10 the bowwoTs because he has been
put out.
What, then, do the Stars own Arkansas cases
prove?
That every act of Kalbfus as assessor illegal,
and that the assessments in which Kalbfus took part
were of doubtful legality
Why
Because Kalbfus never took the oath of office
prescribed for him assistant assessor.
He never WAS an assistant assessor at ALL He
had no right to pretend to be one. The District
-, Foct +;
from office, for he never in the office!
The Star is in the cheerful position of trying to
oust whose acts unquestionably legal in
order to get into the Office man who for many
years has acted without shadow of legal authority!
The law provides the form of oath Kalbfus should
take. He took different oath. He should have
taken his oath before person qualified to administer
that oath. Instead he took it before man unquali-
fed to administer it,
Kalbfus might we'll have gone out and taken
the coronation oath of the Ameer of Afghanisan be-
fore street car conductor as to have taken the oath
Re did take, before the man who administered IT.
Now that is not all The law prescribes that
the assistant shall take his oath within ten
days of his appointment. kalbfus was appointed on
April 29 and did not take the oath till nearly three
months later and then he took THE WRONG OATH
before a person NOT AUTHORIZED TO ADMIN
ISTER IT!
The very particular cases the Star cites make
the complete argument against the position it has
held special defender and peader for Kalbfus.
The Star announces that it doesn't care to con-
tinue this argument. We don't wonder In the
it incensed every civil service employe in
the town by taking the position that they are not fit
persons to hold municipal office and should be
barred. When The Times pointed out the implica
tions of that doctrine the Star DROPPED THAT
LINE OF ARGUMENT, decided to defend Kalbfus
on purely legal grounds, and announced, in his de-
fense, THE TWO PARTICULAR CASES THAT