The Monticellonian., 1916-11-23


 that inc citizens of Monticello were
 not even arrested. l also continued this case without final judgement and
 let. the man go on his own recogni-
 zance. In justice to myself feel IL
 but right to say that both of these men were strangers to me; and that IL
 must have been impossible for me to have had any personal interest III the affair. :, At the last meeting of the council Mr King presented the account TOT TOT cost in these two cases and asked the council to allow it; claiming that these men had been wrongfully discharged by the mayor. The facts in these cases were presented to the council, their at tention was called to the fact that no final judgement had been had in either case and that Cost did not accrue until final judgement and that MT. King was not legally entitled to his cost; and that the only question involved was whether or not the City was nor rally responsible In other words It became a pure question as to whether or not the Council as the chosen repre- sentatiees of the people approved the action of the mayor in the handling of these cases. If in the opinion of the council the Mayor had acted unwisely in these cases then 1t was for them as far as possible to make reparation by paying Mr King the cost which he would have been allowed had there been a judgement of conviction. The Council offered to refuse to allow the account but to make an appropriation to MT. King for like sum for services rendered. This Mr King declined to accept stating that it must come as cost or not at all. This of course fully made the issue as to whether or not the Mayor would be sustained in his action on these cases. After care ful consideration by every member of the council the vote WAS taken and the vote showed six voting for the allow anee of the account; one voting a. gainst Il; and one refusing to vote.
 This vote must necessarily mean that the Council dissapproves the action of the Mayor in these cases but further than that 1t sets q precedent that at anytime when one of the police officers of the City thinks that the Mayor has decided case erroneously, and thus deprived him of his cost. that officer has q right to bring that matter before the Council in I claim for cost; and have the whole case thrashed out be- fore the council. making the Council as 1t were the Court of final appeal i'll these cases b say nothing of the un- and embarrassment of the Mayor in having to defend his ac- tlonS at every meeting of the Council in every ease where he has exercised his own power Of reasoning instead of adopting the theory of the police ollie CT who happened to make the arrest. rTbis If potfYea l4F3il mai laaNa tho Nav or of the city sitting as it's police judge in his decisions and sub feet only to the orders of the Circuit and Supreme Court of the State as is by law; but as said be- fore it makes the Council the Court of review and places him in the embar rassing attitude af having to defend his act ions Ill every case in which the officer sees fit to claim cost, and makes him more or less subject to the orders and directions Of the Council in these matters.
 Under these conditions do not feel that 1 could longer remain Mayor and sit as police judge of the City. have been your mayor for more than seven months during which time have giv- en my energy to the upbuilding ot Monticello and especially her financial affalfS. lHiouEH ali oI my Noi n have had the hearty support and CO., operation Of the council and every member of it. desire to say further that no personal feeling prompts my action in this matter, 1t IS with me purely Il matter of principle; and cave the office with the kindest feelinG for every member of the Council and every officer of the City. My interest will always be in Monticello and her advancement and as private citizen will strive as faithfully for her ad- vancement as I have as her executive head. Respectfully submitted, I-lS-f91G Robert C. Knox. Mayor.