Press enter after choosing selection

The Mayor's Appointment

The Mayor's Appointment image
Parent Issue
Day
6
Month
May
Year
1898
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

Mayor Iliscock's appointments for the coming year caused quite a lively time in the council Mouday eveniug. The appointment of marshal and pa.trolmen was received and placed on tile. The appointment of T. J. Keech as member of the board of public works, of Moses Seabolt as member of the board of fire commissioners, and of Dr. E. A. Clark as member of the board of health were unanimously adopted. E. L. Seyler was endorsed for city treasurer by a vote of 8 to 6. But it was on the appointment of city attorney where the f un carne in. The mayor nominated for that office O. Elmer Butterfleld in place of Thomas D. Kearney. This brought Aid. Arthur Brown to nis feet in earnest protest against the conürmation of this appointment. He did not wish to be understood as opposing the mayor's nomination on the ground of untitness, but the mayor had violated an agreemeut made when the democratie party endorsed Mr. Hiscock's nominatiou for the office of mayor and thus effectually secured his election. He had then agreed in consideration of his endorsement by the democratie convention to give the democrats one of the three important appointments, city attorney, chief of pólice or treasurer. He had promised this to himself, M. J. Cavanaugh, Chas. A. Ward, Thos. D. Kearuey, Wa!ter Mack and others. The mayor told Thos. D. Kearney that he could have the office of city attorney one term and then he would give it to Butterfleld and give the democrats the treasurer. Mr. Kearney on being asked by Aid. Brown if this was true, admitted that it was. "Now," said Aid. Brown. "I simply ask this couucil to make the mayor do like any other man and feep nis promises." Aid. Koch said the mayor had made ïim the same promise. líe also understood that Mr. Butterfield was one of ;lie,attorneys for the Michigan Central and did not think the city attorney should be attorney for the Michigan Central also. Aid. Sweet had talked with the mayor and Mr. Butterfield and the atter said he would not act in cases in which the Michigan Central was interested. Aid. Hamilton said he would need to be assured that Butterfield had no connection with the Michigan Central before he would vote for his confirmation. The nomination of Mr. Butterfield was then laid over. Aid. llamilton's position in this matter is well taken. A man cannot serve two masters and serve both of them well. The attorney of the Michigan Central is a better paid official than the city attorney of Ann Arbor and it isonly natural that his sympathies should run in the channel that pays bim best, no matter how much he might strive against it. There is no question of Mr. Butterfield's fitness for the office so far as ability is concevned, but the question of his appointment is oue of business poliey. A good business man would not think of entering into a lawsuit with a lawyer who was attorney for his opponent, and it is not good business for the guardians of the city's iuterests to do for it what they would not do for themselves.

Article

Subjects
Ann Arbor Argus
Old News