Daily American organ., 1856-08-26

During the administration of Mr.. Towers, the
late Mayor, one Of his nominees, Mr. AcGlue,
was not confirmed till the 30th of August, which
10 later period OF the year than that at which we
have yet arrived. Mr.. Wheeler, another nominee
OF Mr.. Towers, rejected, but was continued in
ONCE; was afterwards renominated, and was not
confirmed till the 26th Of September. Mr.. Hark-
ness, yet another nominee OF Mr.. Towers was also
rejected, but he, too, was continued In Office was
again nomina ated, and finally confirmed ON the 10th
In these cases, occurring only two years ago, we
have the example of nominations, rejections, and
denominations, Just as has happened In several
cases under the present Mayor and yet, we then
heard no complaint from the gentlemen who are
SO tenacious OF the prerogatives of this Coun-
Gil. There was no reduction of the pay of Mr..
Towers's rejected officers nor any proposition to
reduce their pay. The appropriations therefor
were not stricken out the supplies of the city gov
ernment we're not stopped nor was the Mayor charg-
cd with or arragned for conuf1acy III such conduct
was proper under Mayor Towers, il might surely
be excused inMayor Magrudor, who has only "fol-
lowed IN the footsteps of bis immediate predecee-
sorf
A brief recapitalation Of the points of this con-
troversy would present the case thus Mayor Ma
gruder submitted to this Board, for its advice and
consent, all his nominatods for city officers. Most
of them we're confirmed. Several, however, against
whose appointment apparently valid objections
were urged, rejected and in lieu of these the
Mayor promptly submitted other and acceptable
nominees, who were duly approved. But there
were yes several of the rejected nominees against
whom no substantial charges were made. and who
are supposed TO have been rejected on account Of
their political sectarian opinions in the place Of
whom the Mayor has not submitted new appoint
ments, and hence the pending proposition to pun
ish his officers by Withholding their pay.
Mr.. Moore then proceeded to say that the Mayor
was justified in what he had done, both by law and
by precedent but that, even if the Mayor had dis
regarded the prerogatives of the Council, it was
not consistent with Justice to punish his unofend,
ing subor linates, by withholding thersalarics apart
of which was already due for services faithfully
rendered the. city at time when they could not
be dispensed with, without jeoparding its health
fulness and he trusted that the Board would
maintain its consistency and its dignity by reject
ing the fruitess proposition before il.
Mr.. Busey said
Mr.. President: do not propose to reply in full
to the Alderman from the Fourth Ward at this
time intend to introduce resolution calling
upon the law officer of the Corporation for IFS
opinion in regard to the questions ~ issue here.
The argument OF the gentleman in relation to
the meaning of the word I" recess" as employed
in the charter, comedies with my own view, and is
precisely what / stated at the last meeting, when
this subject was under consideration. The gen
tleman says that the session of the Board of Alder
men is continuous, and that there is but one
"recess," and that is between the final adjourn
ment in May and the meeting of the ensuing
Council. This is my own position.
II may be that the interval between the first
meeting and the second is "recess it being
authorized by the charter. | am willing to con-
cede that il is. But when the regular weekly
meetings of this Board commence, on the 4th
50, t.. tl q, Al. -
adournments. The interval between our weekly
meetings more be considered recess
than the interval between the adjournment of
Congress to-day and the time Of its re-assembling
again tomorrow, II is not recess of the Legis-
lSture. This is the most important point at issue,
for upon it. conceive, hangs the entire question
in regard to the nominations. The charter says
the Mayor, shall nominate aud, with the consent
of the Board of Aldermen, appoint but /" during
the recess of the Board of Aldermen" he may
appoint to fill all vacancies.
Mark sir, the phraseoogy, "during the recess
Of the Board Of Aldermen" II the gentleman
and myself are correct as to the meaning of the
phrase the recess Of the Board of Aldermen"
the Mayor certainly has no authority to appoint
any one to fill any Office Of this corporation, when
the charter says distinctly that the "Mayor shall
nominate and with the consent of the Board of
A dermen appoint" The privilege given him to
appoint during recess" cannot be exercised for
no recess "has occurred" It is "during the re-
cess Of the Board of Aldermen" and not during the
interval between its weekly meetings or its ad-
journment from day to day.
But the Alderman says that Notwithstanding he
comedies with me on this point, the Mayor may re-
appoint an individual who has been rejected by the
Board of Aldermen, the next day after his rejection
and continue him In Office uutil its final adjournment
at theclose of the year, because it is continuous
session. deny that he can reappoint him the next
day after his rejection, and contend that the nom
nation must be submitted to the Board at its next
meeting, and If such nomination is not thus submit
ted, the office is and remains vacant and cannot be
filled except with the consent of the Aldermen
If the gentlemans argument be correct, there Is
no use of the confirming power. The Mayor may
reappoint every individual who has been rejected,
continue him in office till the final adjournment
and then, a "recess" having occurred, reappoint
him for the recess" renoninate him to the next
Board OF Aldermen, and il again rejected, proceed
as before, and thus continue tho person in Office
as long as the Mayor remains in Office.
The conclusion to which the gentleman's argu-
ments will bring him is absurd. It does rot stand
the test applied to it. The gentleman and Iagree
as to the precise point at issue, but we deduce
very different conclusions The gentleman cites
precedents which occurred under the late admin
istration as confrmatory of his conclusion. The
cases are widely different from those now under
discussion. The case of McGue is in no particu-
lar similar to the present. He never was rejected.
The case of Wheeler is also different. He was re-
jected, but was re-nominated at the next meeting
and confirmed.
Many of the cases now under discussion, were
II .,& kao,