New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-05-07

Mayor Tiemann sent a note to the Common
Council last night in some degree explaining his
action 10 regard to the charges against DeVlin. He
rays that he sent the papers to the Grand Jury
solely for the purpose of securing Devlin's removal
under the 49th section of the Charter This section
provides that the Grand Jury may present upon the
evidence of witnesses personally cOgnizint OF the
facts to which they testify any City officer except
the Mayor, Controller ard Corporation Counsel,
but only after such person shall have reasonable OPP
lortulty TO appear before the Jury in his own dc.
tense. Should he fail to appear, and be regularly
presented, tie presentment Is filed in the Court aud
becomes ia fact an indictment to which the officer
lust plead, and if he pleads not guilty regular
Jury trial must follow. Upon conviction Cor if be
pleads guilty. the Court declares his office vacant,
and the offender can never thereafter mold an ap.
pointed Office under the Charter. This section was
intended to secure the execution of justice upon
wsitasant officer in case bis partisan friends in the
Board of Aldermen should refusestO consent to iis
removal, or in case corrupt Mayor should over.
look his trespasses and decline TO dismiss him.
But N this case the Aldermen promptly CO.
operated with the Mayor. Deylin was turned out,
AID the aid of the Court was not required.
If the papers sent in by the Mayor were strong
enough to secure Deylins removal, they are equally
good for bis indictments and this result the Mayor
evidently still deems within the bounds of possibility
stce he recommends "thst as these frau is are
developed, ard the evidence obtained to fix the
parties and the responsibility, the Corporation
Counsel shall be directed to institute legal pro-
"ceediDes against the parties implicated" II,
however, it is supposed that BY withdrawing the
papers and prosecuting Deylin simply for fraud
without reference to his removal, he is thereby
Iieved from the penalty Of exclusion from Office, il
is an error, since the 40th section of the Charter
provides that any officer Of the city OF any person
employed n its service who shall commit aug
fraud upon the city, convert public property to
his own uie, or knowingly permit any
Other person to DO so, shall be deemed guilty of 5
mises or, and in edition TO the penalties pro-
ided shah forfeit his Office and be excluded forever
alter from holding any flee under the City Char
ter. This peremptcrily ccmmands the disqualified
ton of ever body from Mayor to street.sweeper,
uho may be convicted Of defraudDg the city TO any
al QUIT whatever Tie mcss that the Mayor la,
doLe, than, By tie withdrawal Of the papers from
The Gtsrd Jury, Is 10 wash hi, hands Of the m,ster
and threw the responsibility OF further proceedings
fist upon the Common Council " no must, by special
vote, direct The Corporation Counsel to prosecute;
aid secondly, upon that cicer, who, 10 the highly
Improbable event OF being Commanded to do 80 by
Deyins frields in the Common Council, will 10
doubt Il axe up ea.e At his leisure, aud prosecute
1t With al the earnest zeal shown for the interests
# ibe city in bis management Of the Lswber
bsrabin.
We have 20 desire 70 throw 7eryth;ns upon the
Nsyo-: but We believe hs was voted into ala place