Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-09-21
The Commission ers and the Law.

Tie Commissioners have stated that
they have not referred to the corpora
'ton counsel OF the District the ques-
ton Of Mr.. oysters eligibility as a
member Of the board of assistant as
SCISSORS. having considered that oues-
ton themselves and regarding them
selves competent TO pass upon the
point This raises new question as
ia. the municipal organization. Why
should the office of corpora ton coun-
sci he continued If the commissioners
To ignore that official. designated
y, Law TO pass upon legal matters and
paid q conside ra BILE salary for such
services.
When the corporation counsel passes
upon a question of legality. from his
fund Of information regarding District
matters and lis experience in inter-
prctins the statutes which apply to
the District. he assumes . responsible
ity which the statute creating his Of
flee contemplateS should rest upon him.
Whose is the responsibility when a
board Of Commissioners. ignoring that
official. disposes OF an issue of law in a
matter affecting the validity of the
tax assessment?
II is tine recognized rule Of practice
that no physician should treat his own
cas-. because OF the possible impairment
of his Judgment and skill by the direct
effects Of disease. Ii is also recognized
as governing practice that no physician
should treat a member of his own fam
tly IN a serious case without calling a
consultation Of other physicians. Fur
thermore. it is the almost universal rule
Of practice that no lawyer should defend
himself when accused and hailed to court
20 answer an accusation. The counselor
o. attorney must be detached from all d.
rect Influences and be free to render
judgment and service unhampered by
personal views
; In this present case the legality of the
act of the Commissioners in selecting for
tie position of assistant assessor man
Who is not. in the specific terms of the
statute creating that office. qualified as
10 bona tide residence in the District has
been questioned. Do the Commissioners
tcfuse To submit this question to any
other authority than themselves? Are
they 10 treat their own case. or to defend
themselves: Arc they to sit in Judgment
upon their own act'
There Is no way to compel the Com
InissiOners 10 refer this question TO the
corporation counsel or any other au-
thorty if they fit 10 persist in their
refusal 10 do so. II they are right in
their assumption that Mr.. Oyster is
qualified 10 serve. I'm the light of the
language of the statute and the decisions
Of the court respecting bona fide resi-
dence in the District. they run no risk
of reversal II they refer the matter.
If they are wrong. are they willing to
rest the case upon their arbitrary ac
ton. leaving undetermined by an ac-
ccptab!e authority the legality Of the APP
pointment. and possibly exposing the en-
tire tax assessment to invalidation later
when the question is actually brought to
coIrt.
II is impossible to avoid the issue in
this case by questioning the applica bility
of the decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States regarding the validity
of tax assessments in the only cases in
which that court has ruled. II is equally
impossible 10 avoid il merely by adher-
once TO the administrative action of ap-
p,intment coupled with a self assumed
authority Of decision as 10 its legality. AS
already stated. this may be done in the
absence OF legal intervention by tax
payer. but It surely does not set before
the District q helpful uplifting con-
hdcnce creating example of law observ-
ancc.
Tae Star repeats that the Commission
eys should without further delay. refer
10 the corporation counsel. the officer
slSnatcd ~ the statute as the one TO
Stode then. as TO the meaning and scope
ne !aN ii their administration OF the
'ruric!pa! government. this question:
is Edward W. Oyster qualified by law
a. o bona iide residence in the District
to serve as a member Of the permanent
JoliG OF assessors?