OCR Text |
Show CITY OFFICERS AND LIGHT FRANCHISE. - The mayor's communication to the council last evening will set at rest the rumors that the city executive, or any member of the city council, was in any way connected with the new light company. com-pany. The prompt and emphatic denial of each councilman and the challenging of anyone to file specific charges will convince any fair minded person that the mayor and councilmen are free from any wrongdoing. But the city attorney admits he is an owner of stock in the new light company. It is charged that he and the assistant attorney, as the firm of Willis & DeVine. are attorneys for the light company. The city attorney says there is no law against his owning stock in the new light company. Of course, that is a matter neither the mayor nor council has to decide. The facts are, so many citizens of Ogdcn knew of the interests the city attorney hnd'in the new light company and, because he was allowed to continue to serve as city attorney, the people began to surmise that other officials also were interested in the new light company. It is not the duty of the mayor and councif to say that the city attorney cannot be a stockholder in a big corporation holding a franchise from Ogden and continue as city attorney. The courts alone can determine that matter and any person who is convinced that a city attorney cannot serve the city and tho corporation at the same time has the right to take the matter up and have it tested. The law presumes a man cannot serve two masters and for that reason the state constitution provides that an emplovc, attorney or agent of a corporation holding franchises from the city cannot hold an elective office in a eity granting such corporation a franchise. The constitution, however, does not say anything about the owner of a corporation being excluded from office, itfany-vsay, of course, if an agent, employe or attorney of; a corporation cannot hold office, of-fice, surely the holder of -the corporation stock is also excluded, but it seems not, unless it be considered that, the stqckholdcr is an agent, employe or attorney. The constitution uses only those terms. However, the mayors message brought to light the fact that the only city officer elected who had stock was the city attorney. who admitted to the city council before the franchise was granted thatiie was a stockholder and who had recommended that Valentine "Gideon act as city attorney for the franchise matter. The law may permit Mr. DeVine to hold stock nn the company. but how about him acting as attorney for the corporation? We invite in-vite Mr. DeVine to answer tins question through this paper. While the matter is up. let the whole question be cleared up. |